On the 24th August, 2021, a group of 95 citizens and residents on The Maltese Islands filed a case in the Civil Court in its constitutional capacity, challenging a number of disproportionate measures taken by the Superintendent of Public Health over the past 18 months, in connection with the handling of SARS COV 2 and Covid 19. They claim that these are unconstitutional and go against the European Convention on Human Rights.
The applicants, who have rallied behind the civil society groups Human Health Alliance and the Natural Health Community for support, have stated that the Superintendent of Public Health persistently failed to heed several warnings or take note of various indications over the past few months, both locally as well as internationally, that clearly showed that the curtailment of a number of fundamental rights and basic civil liberties was not justifiable, reasonable, necessary or proportionate.
Subsequently, they are claiming, a number of measures taken by means of legal notices throughout 2020 and 2021 are in breach of their rights. These include their fundamental rights to freedom of movement within and beyond the Maltese Islands, their freedom to congregate, including in their churches, their right to privacy and family life, their right not to be forced to cover their faces in public, their right to breath fresh air when in the open, their right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their medical choices, their right not to be treated as sick when they enjoy good health, and their right not to be forced into isolation or quarantine in the absence of being clearly and properly diagnosed and certified to be sick and a health risk to others.
Speaking on behalf of the 95 applicants, the Human Health Alliance (HHA) and the Natural Health Community (NHC) stated that despite many of them having filed a judicial protest on the 11th November, 2020, against the Superintendent of Public Health and the Minister of Health, calling upon them to publish without any further delay all the evidence based science that they claimed was underpinning their draconian measures and regulations, such science has never been provided either to them or to the general public.
The inexistence of such evidence-based science has in fact lead over the last few months to a plethora of court judgements throughout Europe and beyond that found against the governments of the respective jurisdictions.
In fact back in May, 2020, world renowned scientists, such as John Ioannidis, of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University, had already published a meta-analysis of studies showing that “the inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic”.
Several courts of Law have declared similar draconian and repressive measures in European nations to be illegal and sometimes unconstitutional. Despite such important juridical developments outside Malta, the Superintendent failed to take such judgments into account, despite reference to them by an official letter sent by a number of applicants in May 2021. Instead, she tightened the screws and issued a series of even more draconian measures, such as shutting the borders to all travelers, and even their children, to Malta, who were not fully vaccinated with the new experimental covid 19 vaccines covered only by an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), and this when no emergency has been declared in The Maltese Islands. Tens of thousands of tourists cancelled their summer holidays as a result, at a time when respiratory infections and transmission are at their lowest.
The HHA and the NHC stated that back in November 2020, a Constitutional Court of Appeal in Lisbon declared the PCR test to be totally unfit for the purpose of diagnosing persons with Covid 19, as had in fact been declared by its own inventor and Nobel prize winner Dr Carry Mullis.
Therefore, this test could not be used to form the basis of policies or laws such as imposing quarantine on persons allegedly testing positive or being in contact with one testing positive. Furthermore, the PCR tests have not even been carried out in Malta with due diligence, but rather in a way that has turned up an extremely high case of false positives of persons who feel perfectly healthy. The CDC has recently proposed that the PCR test no longer be used in the USA after this coming December.
The Court application states that in April 2021, a Court in Scotland declared that closing the churches and denying people the right to congregate in order to practice their religion was unconstitutional and in breach of their human rights.
In Malta all churches were closed for several months, on the pretext of trying to reduce contagion. This was done when persons could have very easily maintained distance from one another, especially in the large churches. They certainly could have done so far more than other people rubbing shoulders while using public buses or shopping at supermarkets.
Judgements in Austria, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Spain and other countries have declared many covid 19 measures in those countries to have been illegal. Yet in Malta the Superintendent remained totally oblivious to all these juridical developments, and remained bull headed and stubborn in pushing ahead with even more extreme measures.
The Court application also states that the World Health Organisation has not called for the imposition of masks outdoors where people could maintain a distance of one metre, which distance would be effective to reduce any possible spread of contagion. Yet the Superintendent and the Minister of Health have insisted on ignoring even the WHO’s recommendations when passing regulations. These have imposed the use of face masks at all times when not in one’s home or car, or carrying out intense exercise. They have been mandatory even outdoors and when distant from other persons, making a mockery of the contagion containment argument.
In the constitutional challenge, applicants quoted a judgement given by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), namely S.A.S. Vs France, of the 1st July, 2014, which declared that the covering of the face breaches the “minimum requirements of life in society as part of the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others” and “falls short of the minimum requirement of civility that is necessary for social interaction”.
The applicants are also claiming a breach of their freedom of movement and discrimination, in the regulations issued prohibiting the movement of residents between the islands of Gozo and Malta, for reasons not connected to work or health. No epidemic was ever declared on either of the Maltese Islands, and therefore such restrictions were disproportionate, unreasonable and discriminatory, since persons residing on mainland Malta could continue to move freely to other districts on the mainland, but not to the district of Gozo. The only persons who were exempt from such unreasonable and unscientific restrictions were those who had the good fortune of owning houses on both islands. This was therefore highly discriminatory, as well as arbitrary and elitist.
With regard to the mandatory use of masks, applicants have also claimed discrimination between those persons who choose to smoke and those who do not. This is because the Superintendent’s unconstitutional regulations permit smokers to remove their mask whenever they wish to inhale tobacco smoke into their lungs, which if anything would only aggravate respiratory problems during an alleged outbreak of respiratory infections. But the applicants who choose to follow natural methods of maintaining their health and avoiding toxins and disease, were prohibited from removing their masks in open spaces, to enable them to inhale fresh air, which ironically is so vital for their health, especially respiratory health.
So this absurd, arbitrary and discriminatory regulation goes to show how the Superintendent has not just ignored the guidelines of the WHO and the many foreign judgements. She has also acted in a way that is an insult to even the most obvious considerations for public health in relation to respiratory health, by banning fresh air out in the open. In her disproportionate mask regulations that have been the most extreme in all of Europe, she however chose to discriminate against those seeking to inhale fresh air, over those seeking to inhale tobacco smoke during the alleged outbreak of a respiratory illness.
The applicants are also contesting the imposition of the new Covid 19 vaccines by trying to either prohibit Maltese citizens from travelling overseas without being fully vaccinated, or by imposing quarantine on those unvaccinated citizens returning to Malta. The Superintendent is also denying them the right to privacy and family life by unreasonably imposing quarantine in a designated hotel, thus imposing an additional financial burden of 100 euros per day. She is also discriminating against applicants who have chosen not to be vaccinated in another way, since these must quarantine for 14 days instead of 7 days imposed on vaccinated persons. This discrimination is being carried out regardless of the fact that it has been established that even vaccinated persons can transmit the virus.
Some applicants have also sued as guardians of their children, whose rights are also being restricted.
Now that a constitutional challenge has been filed, the two NGO’s stated, the Health Department will finally have to come clean before the Court, with all the data, statistics and policy documents that it has refused to make public in 18 months.
These would include, for example;
how many persons succumbed to Covid 19 rather than to other morbidities and being immune compromised owing to extreme old age, amongst other things;
the detailed morbidity statistics for the past 3 years, that the Minister of Health refused to publish, and even refused to place on the Table of Parliament, as he was bound to do in accordance with parliamentary procedures, following a Parliamentary Question;
the justification for imposing the wearing of masks in the open air and distant from others;
the manner in which the PCR tests have been conducted, the skewed results of which have been used to cause widespread alarm and fear to the local population;
the alleged science backing the outlandish theory of “asymptomatic persons”;
and the breakdown of adverse events of the tens of thousands of persons in Malta, Europe and the USA who have suffered serious reactions and even death after having taken the covid 19 vaccines.
On the medalerts website, up to the 13th August, 9027 persons were reported to have died, and another 56,607 reported serious events, after taking just one of the types of covid 19 vaccines, namely the Pfizer shot. Links are listed below for people to verify and check details and do their own research, prior to taking a covid 19 vaccine or so called “booster”:
In its statement, the HHA and the NHC added that the above quoted statistics coming from the vaccine reporting system just for the Pfizer covid 19 shot are extremely alarming. They far exceed any other vaccine adverse reporting stats in history. Furthermore, even these alarming covid vaccine stats have been claimed to be seriously under reported by at least a factor of five.
In a case filed last July 19th in a District Court in the Stata of Alabama, USA, against the Department of Health and Human Services et, advocate Thomas Renz has stated under the heading “Whistleblower Testimony: 45,000 Deaths Caused by the Vaccines’ (page 41) that:
“Plaintiffs’ expert Jane Doe (witness identity withheld pending testimony in open court) is a computer programmer with subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, and access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (see Declaration of Jane Doe at Exhibit D). Over the last 20 years, she has developed over 100 distinct healthcare fraud detection algorithms for use in the public and private sectors. In her expert opinion, VAERS under-reports deaths caused by the Vaccines by a conservative factor of at least 5. As of July 9, 2021, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths associated with the Vaccines. Jane Doe queried data from CMS medical claims, and has determined that the number of deaths occurring with 3 days of injection with the Vaccines exceeds those reported by VAERS by a factor of at least 5, indicating that the true number of deaths caused by the Vaccines is at least 45,000. She notes that in the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine campaign (in which 25% of the U.S. population at that time, 55 million Americans, were vaccinated), the Swine Flu vaccine was deemed dangerous and unsafe, and removed from the market, even though the vaccine resulted in only 53 deaths.”
It is also shocking that even the claimed conservative statistics published by VAERS and other reporting systems have been totally ignored by the Superintendent of Public Health as well as the media. How could this ever be justified, when people in the Maltese Islands have been relying on them to get information about the covid 19 vaccines in order to give their informed consent to taking them? Instead of publishing such data and informing Maltese citizens, these experimental vaccines are being pushed by the Superintendent, like never before, in all of Malta’s medical history. And all this when the deaths from respiratory infections in Malta is no higher than the expected trends when factoring in population growth and age.
Where is the Maltese equivalent of these reporting systems?
From the yellow card reports in the UK, managed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), we know from its published report that from just over 24 million persons who took the Astra Zeneca shot, up to the 18th August, 2021, there are at least 418 cases of blood clots associated with this vaccine. These are listed as “major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts)”. Out of these, 72 of them have died so far. As a result of these findings, the MHRA narrative changed from telling the public that the “vaccines are safe” to stating in its updated reports that “the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks”. This is hardly the same thing. This new narrative is not sufficient to justify continuing using a vaccine under an Emergency Use Authorisation, since the Nuremberg code states clearly that persons cannot be subjected to a vaccine still at experimental stage that is not shown to be safe.
However even the claim that the “benefits outweigh the risks”, is highly questionable. This is because healthy persons under 60 have an extremely low chance of fatality when contracting covid 19.
The NGO’s ask why it is that the Superintendent of Public Health in Malta has not issued reports similar to that of the MHRA in the UK, and why she has not at the very least brought the MHRA report to the attention of the people residing in Malta during her press conferences, where she keeps repeating that the vaccines “are safe”, and not even that “the benefits outweigh the risks”.
Meanwhile one of those blood clot victims in the UK, a well known BBC presenter named Lisa Shaw, has been officially confirmed by the Coroner’s report to have died directly as a result of a blood clot connected to her taking the vaccine. So far the media in Malta have failed to acknowledge that one of their own, aged just 44 and who was in perfectly good health, has tragically died as a result of the vaccine. Maybe some editors think that publishing such important news, as the Guardian has done, would just be “anti vaxxer propaganda”. For a healthy 44 year old like Lisa Shaw, the benefits of taking the vaccine certainly did not outweigh the risks.
Quoting the court application filed on the 24th August, the NGO’s note that reference is made to article 7 of Council of Europe Resolution 2361 of 2021, entitled “Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations”, which resolved that all the Members of the Council, which include Malta, are to, inter alia:
7.1.3 ensure that relevant minimum standards of safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines are upheld;
7.1.4 implement effective systems for monitoring the vaccines and their safety following their roll-out to the general population, also with a view to monitoring their long-term effects;
Where are the minimum standards of safety, when even the VAERS system has turned up over 9,000 deaths, when the swine flu vaccine was terminated in 1976 after just 53 deaths?
As for article 7.1.4. if any monitoring has indeed been done by the Superintendent of Public Health, the results have certainly been kept secret from the public, making it impossible for them to give their duly informed consent to taking the vaccines or to their children taking them. It is illegal for the Superintendent of Public Health to encourage the uptake of a vaccine without providing all the ongoing information about it that would allow persons to make an informed decision before giving their consent to taking it or administering it to their children or the elderly under their charge.
The 2 NGO’s reiterate, furthermore, that the vaccines covered by just an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) cannot be administered to children, because there has never been a covid 19 emergency effecting the public health of children in the Maltese Islands. Children take top priority in society, and administering them with these vaccines is in blatant breach of the general conditions pertaining to EUA’s.
The applicants also quoted a number of distinguished doctors from various countries who have objected to and challenged the decision of the European Medicines Agency to hurriedly issue EUA’s for the new covid 19 vaccines. The Superintendent of Public Health was duly informed of this in the official letter sent to her and to the Minister of Health in May, 2021, at around the same time that the Minister of Health declared publicly that Malta had reached herd immunity. This Ministerial declaration is yet another indication that Malta was not experiencing a health emergency, so any further administration of the vaccines under the limited EUA was both unnecessary and illegal.
The 95 applicants have requested the Court in its constitutional capacity to declare that their human rights to freedom of movement and congregation, the protection against forced detention or isolation, their rights to privacy and to family life, their right not to be discriminated against, not to suffer undignified treatment, or to be coerced, directly or indirectly, into taking the new covid 19 vaccines, have been infringed.
The NGO’s also stated that it is extremely alarming to see so many governments eating out of the hands of a company like Pfizer, when this company has been plagued with a long history of crimes and civil liability. This could be seen, for example, from the US Justice Department announcement that Pfizer had agreed on an out of court settlement to pay a staggering 2.3 billion dollars for the largest health care fraud settlement in US history.
There are many other cases that have seen Pfizer pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for its crimes and other illegal activities:
Companies boasting such a dark legal history in any other sector would, according the international norms of good governance, have been blacklisted outright from tendering processes worldwide. Instead we have seen the massive orders by governments lead to the company making all time profits.
Adding insult to injury, the entire Maltese population has been asked by the Superintendent and Minister of Health to put their blind faith in this same company’s experimental covid 19 vaccine, that has the vaccine adverse event reporting shooting off the charts.
The NGO’s added that the Emergency Use Authorisation, furthermore, which would land the vaccine companies even more staggering windfall profits, does NOT include the possibility of taking additional shots that are being marketed as “boosters”. Yet this is already on the agenda of the Superintendent and Minister and of Health for this coming September and October, for the elderly and the immunocompromised. https://www.italpress.com/malta-plans-third-covid-vaccine-booster-from-september/
The two NGO’s concluded by commending those members who have taken the bull by the horns and filed a constitutional challenge against so many disproportionate, unreasonable and arbitrary decisions that have been pouring out of the Department of Health over the past 18 months.
The Rule of Law, they added, dictates that a free and open society can only be built upon fundamental human rights, and Government transparency and accountability.
The NGO’s stated that they have noticed that a growing number of people in the Maltese Islands are now realising that their islands have been subjected to many arbitrary, nonsensical decisions, and highly disproportionate measures that have no justification or basis at Law. Many Maltese citizens are also aware that millions of fellow Europeans have been rising up and protesting against similar strong-arm tactics by their governments on the pretext of disease management.
They however also noted with great concern that such events have been largely blocked out by the local media, played down or misreported. It appears that many media editors have considered that millions of persons protesting against their governments is not newsworthy, and not something that their readers and viewers would be interested in knowing about. In the same way these editors decided that the Great Barrington Declaration signed by over 57,000 doctors and medical scientists criticising both the lockdown measures and widespread roll out of the new vaccines was not newsworthy.
The same media blackout or spin has even effected persons in Malta who have been crying foul over a number of issues relating to human rights and civil liberties that have now been challenged before the Civil Court in its constitutional capacity.
On the local scene a recent public protest in Valletta was attended by over 750 persons, which was also very poorly covered and misrepresented by a lot of the media.
People have not missed the U turn in the vaccine policy since the Prime Minister had declared last year that the new covid 19 vaccines would not be forced upon anyone, although the Media seems to have totally forgotten about that. Today you cannot leave or enter Malta freely without being vaccinated.
People have also been alarmed at the continued disproportionate measures being implemented even in the summer months, and were bewildered considering the Minister of Health’s own declaration on the 24th of May, 2021, that Malta had reached herd immunity, and the Prime Minister’s promise that life would return to normal, with no more restrictions come May 2021. Whatever happened to such herd immunity and Prime Ministerial promise?
Instead of returning to normal, many have been shocked to see the overnight crushing of the tourism sector in the high season of July and August. A court case for damages has recently been filed by the English language schools against the Government of Malta for destroying their business and shutting down the language schools at the very peak of their business.
All details pertaining to the constitutional challenge will be uploaded on the websites of the HHA and the NHC at www.natural-health-community.org and www.humanhealthalliance.org during the course of the court proceedings. This will keep members and the public up to date with direct access to all documentation without having to go through secondary sources of information.