The European Court of Justice considers that doctors and nurses will be solely responsible for the consequences of covid injections...

hmmm..."solely responsible" - red flag for me, shifting ALL the blame...

"solely responsible" - that’s a red flag for me, shifting ALL the blame. Sure most doctors were cowards, terrified of losing their licenses and salaries, few took a stand, but this too is still the low-hanging fruit, IMO...and it means that the REAL monsters are off the hook.

Big wake-up call here for the white coats…don’t play along with depopulation ghoulz...and don’t kill people for money…

So are the ghoulz feeling the heat to throw someone - anyone - under the bus…not that I forgive any doctors pushing the poisons…but…

Here’s Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.

The European Court of Justice considers that doctors and nurses will be solely responsible for the consequences of covid injections because they were free to refuse to inject.

Could this happen here?

I don’t think they actually were free to refuse to inject. There were military types gang stalking personnel at many of the larger hospitals, making sure that the murderous CDC protocols were followed to the letter…and will ventilators be next? And how about Midazolam?

But, I still want them held accountable - and all the doctors who were fired and demonized (and murdered) for not going along with the genocide should be compensated, if this is ever implemented in the states…

https://x.com/CaptKylePatriot/status/1920580112572936343

I wonder who the DoD and top tier demons will get to inject the world with their new poison jabs? And who will dare administer those cancer vaxxes and marburg jabs if this blows up? Will they come door to door, or will they Airvax them on us all…? Band Aids by mail?

They’ll figure something out…perhaps AI can assist them…

It all makes me want to scream, hiss, hurl …and throw things…

Photo by Borna Bevanda on Unsplash

disclaimer: I’m not sure when this actually surfaced…and not everything she says is true…

In Central Texas the hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses - it was mandatory to be jabbed or be fired. Many others, I’m sure…

passing the buck…we won’t let them get away with it…they will ALL go down, eventually…

asking Grok

Is the Video Current?

The video in the X post by

@CaptKylePatriot

, featuring Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, is not current as of May 9, 2025. The post itself was made on May 8, 2025, but the content of the video appears to reference events and rulings that are likely from earlier periods, possibly around 2023 or before, given the context of Dr. Tenpenny's license suspension and the ongoing discussions about COVID-19 vaccine liability.

Is It True?

The claim that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued a ruling holding doctors and nurses solely responsible for the consequences of COVID-19 vaccinations because they were free to refuse to inject is not entirely accurate or fully supported by the available information. Here's a detailed analysis:

1. ECJ Ruling Context: The ECJ did not issue a ruling specifically stating that doctors and nurses are solely responsible for the consequences of COVID-19 vaccinations. The mention of the ECJ in the video likely refers to broader discussions or interpretations of legal responsibilities related to vaccine administration in Europe. The ECJ's role is to interpret EU law, and any such ruling would need to be contextualized within existing EU legislation and directives.

2. Liability and Responsibility: In many jurisdictions, including the EU, the liability for vaccine-related injuries is complex and often shared among various parties, including manufacturers, governments, and healthcare providers. The ECJ's decisions typically involve interpreting directives like the EU Vaccine Injury Compensation Directive, which aims to balance compensation for vaccine injuries with the protection of public health initiatives. The idea that doctors are solely responsible is an oversimplification and does not align with the nuanced legal frameworks in place.

3. Misinformation and Fringe Narratives: Dr. Tenpenny's statements often align with fringe or conspiracy theories, and her credibility has been questioned due to her history of promoting discredited medical claims. The "Nuremberg 2.0" reference is part of a broader narrative that lacks legal or historical basis, as the original Nuremberg Trials addressed war crimes, not medical practices related to vaccines.

What Would It Mean If True?

If the claim were true and the ECJ had indeed ruled that doctors and nurses are solely responsible for the consequences of COVID-19 vaccinations, it would have several significant implications:

1. Legal and Professional Repercussions: Healthcare professionals could face increased legal risks, potentially leading to a chilling effect on their willingness to administer vaccines. This could undermine public health efforts, especially in the context of future pandemics or health crises.

2. Insurance and Malpractice: Medical malpractice insurance premiums might rise significantly, as the risk profile for doctors and nurses would change. This could also lead to a reevaluation of how healthcare systems manage liability for vaccine administration.

3. Public Trust in Healthcare: Such a ruling could erode public trust in healthcare professionals and the medical system, as patients might perceive doctors as bearing sole responsibility for vaccine outcomes, potentially deterring vaccination rates.

4. Policy and Legislation: It might prompt a reevaluation of vaccine liability laws across the EU and possibly influence similar discussions in other regions, including the USA, as mentioned in the X post. This could lead to changes in how vaccine programs are structured and funded.

However, given the current understanding and the lack of evidence for such a specific ruling by the ECJ, these implications remain hypothetical and are not supported by the legal reality as of May 9, 2025. The discussion around vaccine liability continues to be a complex and evolving area of law, influenced by both public health needs and individual rights.