MEP Christine Anderson leading the way in EU Parliament on safety and human rights

Here at Freedom Travel Alliance we were relieved to see the work Christine Anderson MEP and her colleague Virginie Jaron are doing within the European political system to raise the issue of human rights and safety within the aviation industry. We have become so used to politicians putting Pharma profits before humans rights and safety this is a welcome voice of reason!

Christine Anderson held an expert panel session within the EU parliament entitled Post-vac flight risks, posing the question "Are you safe on board a plane?"

The panel session which was also attended by French Deputy MEP, Virginie Joron, and included attorneys from France and Switzerland, Chantal Biolley, Captain and spokesperson from Airliners for Humanity in Switzerland and a flight attendant.

Many pilots and aviation workers have unlawfully been told that they will loose their job if they do not submit to being part of the human experimental gene therapy trials. We are also seeing a growing number of serious adverse events that pilots and others in the aviation sector are suffering.

Christine stated that "We're talking about a safe flight, which may may no longer be the case, as a lot of pilots who did not want to be vaccinated have been laid off. and the ones that did get vaccinated because they have families go feed, a mortgage to pay, etc, may no no longer be fit to fly."

So its not just a human rights / employment rights issue, it is very much about safety too.

Christine went on to say "...this vaccine campaign will go down as the biggest scandal in medical history, and moreover it will be known as the biggest crime ever committed on humanity."

So much of the evidence presented in the session covered serious concerns about safety, adverse reactions and the infringement of human and employment rights.

Key points and questions:

• Chantal Biolley who is a captain and pilot and also spokesperson for Airliners for Humanity stated that "Aviation safety over the past 100 years has constantly been improved, we learned through mistakes ... so the same errors didn't happen twice. So we have a whole system of regulators and rules, and that's appropriate as that is why flying is as safe as it is nowadays. There is lack of clarity about this type of medicinal approach - whether it is a vaccine or a gene therapy." she also posed the question "What would be the requirements for the control authorities before they use a new technology for aviation and has there been any research in aviation where the number rule is safety first? Is aviation still on the same level of safety as it was before the introduction of Covid19 vaccines? We pilots are the ones who are responsible for the crew, the aircraft and the passengers sitting on board. We are responsible for you. In aviation can these new methodologies be used when they might be jeopardising flight safety?"
  

• The French attorney made the following statement: "When it comes to influenza vaccines in France, there were 59 cases of serious adverse reactions since 1990. With the Covid19 vaccine, its 24 times higher. When it comes to the suspected deaths its 0.4 per million for influenza vaccines and 21 per million for Covid19 vaccines. So that’s 51 times (for the Covid vaccine). Underreporting isn't taken into account. In light of these figures, we can't help asking how aviation can be as safe as before with the introduction of the Covid 19 Vaccines? Can you simply introduce new measures in aviation when they undermine safety? Who is responsible to make these determinations? Who's in charge or responsible for your safety?"
  

• Evidence was provided by Letitia Howard, a flight attendant who talked about the adverse reaction that she suffered following her second jab and how the longterm effect has meant she has not been able to work and had to give up her house. She was given the choice "take the vaccine or loose your job". Stating "It's had an awful impact on my life, on my finances. I have recently gone back to work, but it was really very difficult, and I have to say, it is hard to say all of this in front of all of you today, but I think if the flight crew isn't 100% when they are on board, they're not capable of doing their job. And the truth is we've just seen the tip of the iceberg, there are lot of people who aren't speaking out because, us being able to work is based on our health. So, people don't want to speak out." Other cases of adverse reactions were shared by the French attorney also.
  

• Swiss Attorney, Philip Kruse stated: "Now staff that stand up against these vaccines, as a general rule, are not against vaccines as such, but rather, as we heard from my colleague, they are concerned about safety. And safety is the central topic here. And the main argument. The effects of a Covid 19 vaccine have not been sufficiently researched yet in terms of their safety. In addition to this, when we're talking about flight staff, there are specific environmental conditions that they are subject to. Various pressures, different air humidity and different time differences, of course, and different biorhythms that their bodies are subject to. And so, the obligation to be vaccinated goes against flight safety measures. ...Perhaps the most important principle that we're going to be talking about this evening there is the principle (and this is covered in the manual of Civil Aviation Medicine in document 8984), it says that new measures have to be taken into the context of health emergencies and that they can be introduced in civil aviation, if they meet the requirements relating to flight safety and that they don't represent a setback in terms of airline safety. They have to ensure that the new substances are only admitted or allowed if they meet certain requirements. Now, here we do not have long term studies. We've not got long term studies on the effectiveness or on the safety of the Covid19 vaccine. We're dealing with new technology here. We've asked whether EASA (European Aviation Safety Authority) has ever carried out its own independent prevented investigations on the use of vaccine in aviation. Essentially, the answer is, no. Philip goes on to make a very important point in terms of human and employment rights. "This is for people who work for airlines. I said before that people fear that if they don't take the vaccine, they will lose their jobs, but there are very clear provisions provided here from the WHO. This is the international health regulations. Article 57, it very clearly states in here: the provisions of the IHR shall not affect the rights and obligations of any state party deriving from other international agreements. So, it very clearly refers to other agreements, including International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And here too, there's a very important article, article seven, and again, I underlined it and read the important sentence here: “In particular no-one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. So without his free consent, there is the important part. And then in article four, and this is decisive, it says “the above applies even in times of public emergency.” So even if there's an emergency situation that's been announced by the WHO in an international health emergency, even in that situation, these rules apply."

We are looking forward to hearing further developments and whether we will see more MEP's supporting this call for more safety measures including monitoring and reporting and adherence to human and employment rights.