Switzerland: Legal team files updated criminal case against Swissmedic

Swiss attorney Philipp Kruse has filed an updated complaint to the public prosecutor on behalf of 37 persons making a report and six private claimants directly harmed by mRNA covid “vaccines.”

For all the reasons detailed in the complaint, “urgent coercive measures (searches of the Swissmedic premises, seizure of the mRNA ‘vaccines’) must be taken immediately to protect against these illegal and high-risk mRNA injections,” the complaint document states.

On July 14, 2022, Zurich attorney Philipp Kruse filed a 300-page criminal complaint with the relevant public prosecutor’s office on behalf of six people allegedly injured by mRNA vaccinations.  

Weighing up the pros and cons of going public with the complaint, Kruse and his team concluded it was better to hold off until the public prosecutor’s office had sufficient time to carry out the urgent preservation of evidence.

“Due to generally positive feedback from the public prosecutor’s office, we even waited longer than originally planned,” the Corona Complaint website says.  “As lawyers and scientists, however, we could no longer withhold the specialised knowledge we had acquired from the public.”  So, on 14 November 2022, the team made the criminal complaint available to the public.

Read More: Switzerland: After Being Ignored by The Courts, Lawyer Goes Public with Criminal Case Against Swissmedic and Demands Immediate Suspension of Vaccines, The Exposé, 1 December 2022

The Corona Complaint website refers to the original complaint as “criminal complaint 1.0.”  It states: “We are dealing here with nothing less than the greatest danger – indeed, injury – to human health that has ever occurred in Switzerland.” 

Because this danger still exists, exacerbated by extending the approvals for the use of mRNA covid injections, the team has updated criminal complaint 1.0  with additional sources.

“As all of the original allegations had been emphatically confirmed and even more were added, a comprehensive revision was ultimately unavoidable,” the Corona Complaint website states.

Criminal complaint 2.0 uses a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis to show that the mRNA injections are clearly associated with a negative benefit.  Yet, “Swissmedic continues to deceive the public about this and many other circumstances to this day,” the website states.  So, the original accusations, such as that of falsification of documents by a public official, were strengthened in criminal complaint 2.0.

Criminal complaint 2.0 was submitted to the public prosecutor’s office on 7 February 2024.  Last week, on 28 March 2024, the Corona Complaint team made the complaint documents available to the public.

Dr. Robert Malone published an article regarding criminal complaint 2.0:

I suggest that the legal complaint that Dr. Kruse has compiled and submitted to Swiss legal authorities is the most comprehensive summary of the regulatory mismanagement and fraud which has taken place at virtually all western national regulatory authorities during the push for mandatory deployment and uptake of the COVID mRNA “vaccines”, and can serve as a template for both other complaints as well as expert witness testimony.

Furthermore, I am struck by the parallels between the actions of the Swiss national regulatory authority, the US FDA/CDC, and virtually all other Western national regulatory authorities. This strongly suggests close communication and/or collusion among these agencies and their political and bureaucratic State managers during the COVIDcrisis.

Criminal Complaint vs. SwissMedic/mRNA Vax, Dr. Robert Malone, 2 April 2024

A copy of the 21-page executive summary can be HERE and a PDF copy of it HERE.  An overview, timeline, summary and the full 450-page complaint document can be found HERE.

The executive summary of the complaint (“the complaint”) notes that the mRNA “vaccines” against SARS-CoV-2 infections have been proven to pose a far greater threat to the healthy population than the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen itself.

“Swissmedic, or the persons acting on its behalf, are primarily responsible for the violation of human health already caused by mRNA-based substances and for the ensuing threat,” it states and goes on to detail Swissmedic’s failings:

• repeated breach of the due diligence requirements under therapeutic products law;
• failing to fulfil the obligation to monitor the product after marketing authorisation (so-called “pharmacovigilance”) in a manner that was proportionate to the risks involved  and instead seriously and permanently violated the obligation to provide notification of side effects under therapeutic product law;
• seriously violating the prohibition on the advertising of medicinal products under therapeutic product law;
• the undesirable side effects (death, damage to health) that were foreseeable from the authorisation studies and then occurred after authorisation fulfil relevant elements of the Criminal Code; and,
• knowingly and persistently misleading both the public and medical professionals in a criminal manner about facts that are essential for the risk-benefit assessment when making a vaccination decision.

Section 3.1 of the complaint details Swissmedic’s criminal acts. Under the heading ‘Initial authorisation that breaches the law and duties’ the complaint notes that provisional authorisation was given despite the risk factors that must have been known as early as December 2020.  These risk factors include:    

• mRNA products are categorised as gene therapy by regulators such as Swissmedic and the European Medicine Agency, as well as by the manufacturers themselves.  Gene therapies pose a particular risk for several reasons.
• Swissmedic abandoning the requirements for a standardised dosage of the mRNA preparations authorised for injection that are otherwise mandatory for all other medicinal products.
• The manufacturing process for the mRNA products actually administered (“manufacturing process 2” with plasmid DNA) differed fundamentally from the manufacturing process used for the products authorised by Swissmedic (“manufacturing process 1”).
• Initial animal studies – a mandatory prerequisite for clinical phase 2 and 3 trials and a key safety element – had not been carried out by the manufacturers at all or not to a sufficient extent, but they already showed disquieting results.
• The subsequent studies on humans, on the basis of which the “temporary” authorisations were granted at the end of 2020, had only run for two months (instead of the usual 12–24 months) and were then de facto discontinued by the manufacturers by disbanding the control groups and were largely stripped of their medium and long-term significance.

“Despite this alarming initial situation from a safety perspective,” the complaint states, “and despite numerous other circumstances that increased the risk, the first authorisation of the mRNA ‘vaccines’ was well and truly rushed through by Swissmedic.”

The applications for authorisation were “reviewed” and approved in just 63 calendar days (an ordinary procedure would take 330 days, a procedure for “temporary” authorisation usually takes 140 days), whereby important, mandatory, milestones were simply omitted.

As a result, these “temporary” authorisations within the meaning of Art. 9a TPA mean in actual fact that the entire Swiss population participated without their knowledge in the riskiest and largest clinical experiment ever to be conducted in Switzerland (and, by extension, the whole world). And this experiment has not been terminated to date.

Swissmedic criminal claim – “Executive Summary” (2.0), Kruse Law, 7 February 2024

Section 3.2 of the complaint details Swissmedic’s perpetuation of illegal authorisations that breach the law and duties. These include a disregard for all additional indications of risk regarding dosage; adverse effects and deaths recorded in Pfizer’s Post Marketing Pharmacovigilance Report; and, global adverse effects reports.

“Even these scandalous alarm bells did not prompt Swissmedic to seriously question the wrong path it had taken. Swissmedic neither limited the number of authorisations nor informed the public about the risks identified. Swissmedic did not even feel compelled to improve its own purely passive pharmacovigilance by recording the side effects identified in Switzerland,” the complaint states.

“Instead,” the complaint reads, “at the end of 2021, Swissmedic took the step of extending the  authorisations to a third dose (“booster”) and to children aged five and over … although by this point among other things … it was also known”:

• that even representatives of the pharmaceutical industry were openly describing mRNA injections as what they really are – a form of gene therapy;
• that the toxic spike protein produced in the body of the vaccinated person is present in the body for much longer and in a much higher concentration than originally stated by Swissmedic and the manufacturers, which can lead to numerous serious side effects, including death;
• that data had been falsified and risk signals concealed in the context of the Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech) authorisation study, which should have led to the immediate withdrawal of the study;
• that Pfizer/BioNTech had presented an alarming interim report (PSUR) at the end of August 2021, according to which 46 cases had ended fatally in the clinical trials and 5,069 cases (1.6%) had already ended fatally in the so-called “post-marketing phase”;
• that Pfizer had delivered 7 batches with a massively increased number of adverse event reports to Switzerland – an alarm bell that should have led Swissmedic to immediately warn the population and even to recall the batches, but this has not yet happened;
• that at least 60 deaths were recorded of children in Switzerland, the EU and the USA for Comirnaty and Spikevax alone, which means that the absolute alarm threshold of 50 deaths was clearly exceeded in this target group alone, which is in no way at risk from SARS-CoV-2, which should have led to the immediate suspension of this authorisation extension at least, if not the suspension of all mRNA authorisations;
• that more than 2,000 premature births and stillbirths following mRNA injections had already been reported in the USA and the EU alone;
• that a worrying trend was already evident in Switzerland in 2021, namely a conspicuous and persistent death rate in younger age groups a short time after “vaccination activity”; and,
• that the mRNA “vaccines” (Comirnaty and Spikevax) had received 60 times as many reports of serious side effects and 20 times as many reports of deaths per million doses administered in comparison with the influenza vaccines by the end of 2021.

“Instead of finally suspending the mRNA authorisations, carrying out an in-depth analysis of the decisions taken, telling the public the truth about the risks that can actually be identified and improving the reporting system for recording vaccination side effects in line with these risks, Swissmedic continued to maintain all ‘temporary’ authorisations in 2022,” the complaint says noting additional “existing facts with risk and legal relevance” that were known.

Such facts include mRNA products are high-risk products because they contain nucleic acid, regulate gene expression and ‘biologically active material’; almost four million adverse reactions to all covid “vaccines” had already been reported worldwide; the stillbirths and miscarriages reported after vaccination of a pregnant mother; a historic decline in live births across the world; ill effects on female and male fertility;  a significant increase in a wide variety of disease diagnoses; autopsy reports proving the vaccine-induced spike protein to be the cause of death; and, reports of myocarditis and vaccine-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (“VAIDS”) post-vaccination.

“By 1 March 2022, at least 128 peer-reviewed publications on heart problems, 216 peer-reviewed publications on life-threatening coagulation disorders (thromboses, etc.) and six peer-reviewed publications on possible deaths as a result of covid vaccinations had been published,” the complaint states.

The complaint then details how “covid-19” is not and has never been a “life-threatening or debilitating” disease that threatens the public at large.

“In view of the above, Swissmedic authorised a highly experimental and dangerous medicinal product to prevent a disease that poses no greater threat to the population as a whole than influenza does,” Kruse and his team state.

Additionally, Swissmedic has not yet authorised more effective and less harmful treatments that have been known about for a long time, such as treatment with Ivermectin or other suitable approaches.  “In doing so, Swissmedic has deliberately sidelined the authorisation requirement of a lack of alternative treatment methods and thus actively blocked demonstrably more effective protection against covid-19 (than the mRNA ‘vaccinations’).”

For all these reasons, and others that the complaint details but we have not noted in our article, “urgent coercive measures (searches of the Swissmedic premises, seizure of the mRNA ‘vaccines’) must be taken immediately to protect against these illegal and high-risk mRNA injections,” the complaint states. “In addition, active measures must be taken at long last to ensure that the Swiss population, which continues to be misled, is informed about this multitude of problems in a complete and transparent manner.”