Should compulsory vaccination, the declaration of a special situation and the expansion of
surveillance in the event of another pandemic or similar be made possible through the back door?
So even if a country would not sign the WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Treaty?
At least this is the impression given by the planned revision of the Swiss Epidemics Act.
The association Bürger fragen nach has taken up the Federal Council's proposed amendments to the new law and
submitted its position in a letter to the members of the National Council and the Council of States.
Please find below the most concise excerpts from this letter.
Observe for yourself whether the same or similar laws are being planned in your country.
We have also taken note of the Federal Council's proposed amendment to the Epidemics Act (EPA).
We are very concerned about some of the proposed changes.
Especially as the coronavirus pandemic has not even begun to be dealt with and much is still unclear.
With regard to the hastily introduced vaccines in particular, countless questions remain unanswered to this day.
As an example, we cite the fact that the EMA has since had to admit that the vaccines were never able to
prevent infection and thus transmission of the coronavirus.
Furthermore, the vaccinating population has never been properly informed that they are in principle taking part in a
medical experiment, as the necessary studies had not even been completed by the time the vaccinations were introduced.
Instead, the population was sold a great protective effect and a vaccination with almost no side effects.
EPG Art. 6c - The facility-based vaccination obligation
Despite all the aforementioned facts, the Federal Council now actually wants to include a facility-based
vaccination requirement in Article 6c for the next pandemic!
We would like to remind you of the statement made by Federal Councillor Alain Berset on 30.11.2021 in an interview with SRF
(10 to 10 program): We have always said: in our country, vaccination is a voluntary act, and we want to respect that.
And in the Federal Council's answer of 17.05.2023 to National Councillor Franz Grüter, when he asked the Federal Council
specifically whether mandatory vaccination should be expected in view of the new WHO pandemic treaty (see point 4),
the Federal Council's response to this question was succinct:
The WHO cannot impose measures on its member states.
The WHO has also not ordered mandatory vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yes, according to the Federal Council, the new WHO pandemic treaty will not make vaccination compulsory,
because Mr. Alain Berset confirmed on 29.11.2023 that the Federal Council wants to firmly anchor the
(partial) vaccination obligation in the EPG itself.
As if the Federal Council had not known about this intention 8 months earlier when it replied to Mr. Grüter!
EPG Art. 6b
- The special situation due to the WHO requirement According to this article, the special situation exists if
the WHO has determined that there is a public health emergency of international concern.
The fact that there is then also a particular threat to public health in Switzerland is very quickly put into context.
Because even if Switzerland does not agree to the amendments to the IHR and rejects the pandemic treaty, we see the
EPG without an additional clause as the gateway to the adoption of a special situation declared by the WHO.
EPG Art. 12 - Monitoring
In para. 1 lit. c, socio-demographic and behavioral data are now collected in particular.
This data is also linked to the AHV number by letter d.
Para. 5 lit. d also defines that observations whose monitoring is internationally agreed must be reported.
We assume that the Swiss population's behavior will be monitored on a large scale. And in connection with this,
we fear that measures will be taken if someone does not behave according to the guidelines.
As we know from the WHO's IHR amendments known to date, in addition to diseases and the danger posed by viruses and
bacteria, climate change could in future also be among the risks for which the Director-General can declare a special situation.
EPG Art. 33 para. 2 - Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is now definitely anchored here.
It was to be assumed that this would be transferred from the Covid Act to the Epidemics Act.
But has the actual benefit of contact tracing already been seriously investigated?
EPG Art. 44b - medical goods, medicinal products
In lit. a, the Federal Council will in future be able to make exceptions for the import of medical goods.
The facilitation of the import of unauthorized, ready-to-use medicinal products is explicitly mentioned here.
In lit. b, the Federal Council may also adjust their licensing requirements.
It will be able to use lit. c to provide for exceptions to the licensing requirement or use this definition to
adapt the licensing requirements or the licensing procedure.
And in lit. d, the Federal Council will make exceptions via the
The Commission may provide for the placing on the market, making available on the market and putting into service
of medical devices (medicinal products, vaccines, or what is the definition of medical devices?
So when we look at the above changes in the EPG from this point of view, we seriously ask ourselves:
Will the Federal Council simply adopt the WHO guidelines on medicinal products and medical devices in future?
even if the IHR amendments are not adopted and the new pandemic treaty is not ratified? So will the WHO and its influential
NGOs still dictate via the Federal Council which medicines, vaccines and medical devices are approved in Switzerland?
We know the power that NGOs, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, wield over the WHO, and that Bill Gates is
certainly not only pursuing purified interests through his foundation, but also clearly financial interests.
We know about the involvement and influence of the pharmaceutical lobby.
Or how do you explain the fact that Bill Gates, for example, happened to invest in BioNTech before
this company ever brought a drug onto the market?
Coincidentally, it was precisely this company that then produced the vaccine in cooperation with Pfizer?
The vaccine, whose studies had not even been completed at the time of approval and whose possible
long-term effects/late damage are still not clear?
Incidentally, Bill Gates announced at the current WEF that he is pushing for new
vaccines to be launched on the market in 100 days.
Do you seriously believe that the necessary studies on safety, toxicity, genocide and efficacy can be carried out in 100 days?
Prior to the mRNA vaccine approvals, it took around 10 years for a new drug to receive approval.
We do not understand how, in view of these facts of the lack of processing, all these changes can now simply be written
into the Epidemics Act and the Federal Council's expansion of power can now be legally enshrined in this way.
First of all, we should really make an effort to take a closer look at certain things from the last four
years before these EPG changes are simply waved through.
On November 29, 2023, the Swiss Federal Council opened the consultation procedure for
the partial revision of the Epidemics Act.
This consultation will continue until March 22, 2024.
Explanation for non-Swiss people:
The consultation procedure is a phase in the Swiss legislative process before the law comes into force.
During this phase, interested parties or individuals can comment on the project.
Even those who are not invited to the consultation procedure can comment on a proposal.
Whoever wants to do this can still become active until March 22, 2024.
In addition to the letter quoted in this broadcast, interested parties will find a further letter of
complaint by Dr. Heinz Raschein in the blue info box.