German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If it's a "death vaccine" and as billions have had it, then yes.

Please keep in mind that is MY name for it and is not a name given in any official or professional capacity...so it's not subject to scrutiny from anyone!

a reply to: jerryznv

Yes, and so?

This is a discussion forum?

If you make claims, other folk can discuss them.

To people saying she's a saint or hero, next time a Geriatric family member needs a hip replacement, is it OK for if the Surgeon thinks "well, they're old anyway and are going to die soon. I'll just say I've done it" or how about a person who needs Chemotherapy and the Nurse thinks "They've already got cancer, I'll just inject saline instead of the medicine and end their suffering quicker".
However you feel about the covid vaccine, the way this Nurse acted is despictable, and she should have recieved a far harsher punishment for her actions.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The fact billions have had it doesn't make the vaccine safe and effective.

Several deaths have been recorded and as well as several illnesses affecting a large number of people from myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, to autoimmune disorders and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.

The reasons billions had it is very different to the vaccine being safe and effective and that's why the had it. Coercion, pressure, intimidation, threats of dismissal, fear and terror propagating from the MSM, etc.

Remember how the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn and for what reasons back in 1976?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was, calling it a "death vaccine" is pure hyperbole.

Doesn't COVID have similar complications?

Viruses can cause Myocarditis and similar disorders, can they not?

originally posted by: Kurokage
To people saying she's a saint or hero, next time a Geriatric family member needs a hip replacement, is it OK for if the Surgeon thinks "well, they're old anyway and are going to die soon. I'll just say I've done it" or how about a person who needs Chemotherapy and the Nurse thinks "They've already got cancer, I'll just inject saline instead of the medicine and end their suffering quicker".
However you feel about the covid vaccine, the way this Nurse acted is despictable, and she should have recieved a far harsher punishment for her actions.

She didn't as the judges believed she meant no harm and they probably have doubts themselves about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines just a lot of people at this point.

Cancer may involve chemotherapy at some point. However you are not getting vaccinated for cancer as cancer is not a communicable disease. (only exception you get an HPV vaccine so not to get cervical cancer).

a reply to: Asmodeus3

She didn't as the judges believed she meant no harm and they probably have doubts themselves about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines just a lot of people at this point.

Cancer may involve chemotherapy at some point. However you are not getting vaccinated for cancer as cancer is not a communicable disease. (only exception you get an HPV vaccine so not to get cervical cancer).

What I've posted in bold is just your opinion on how events happened, nothing more.
My post was about the slippery slope of allowing a Nurse or any other health practioners beliefs to affect their job, which is why standards of practice are set.

www.nmc.org.uk...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My point was, calling it a "death vaccine" is pure hyperbole.

Doesn't COVID have similar complications?

Viruses can cause Myocarditis and similar disorders, can they not?

Yes they can especially to immunosuppressed individuals. I am talking about myocarditis and blood clots mainly.


However here we talk about a range of serious illnesses caused by the vaccines to young and healthy people who have miniscule risks from Covid.

The vaccines don't have to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths to be withdrawn from the market and don't have to injure as many others.

The choice of language by other members doesn't change the major issues with this vaccine and the vaccination campaign

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

She didn't as the judges believed she meant no harm and they probably have doubts themselves about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines just a lot of people at this point.

Cancer may involve chemotherapy at some point. However you are not getting vaccinated for cancer as cancer is not a communicable disease. (only exception you get an HPV vaccine so not to get cervical cancer).

What I've posted in bold is just your opinion on how events happened, nothing more, and my post was about the slippery slope of allowing a Nurse or any other health practioners beliefs to affect their job, which is why standards of practice are set.

www.nmc.org.uk...

Yes that's why I have said 'probably' but it's a real possibility. Nobody can be inside the heads of the judges but we can guess.

And i could be correct.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

She didn't as the judges believed she meant no harm and they probably have doubts themselves about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines just a lot of people at this point.

Cancer may involve chemotherapy at some point. However you are not getting vaccinated for cancer as cancer is not a communicable disease. (only exception you get an HPV vaccine so not to get cervical cancer).

What I've posted in bold is just your opinion on how events happened, nothing more, and my post was about the slippery slope of allowing a Nurse or any other health practioners beliefs to affect their job, which is why standards of practice are set.

www.nmc.org.uk...

Yes that's why I have said 'probably' but it's a real possibility. Nobody can be inside the heads of the judges but we can guess.

And i could be correct.

Or completely incorrect...

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

She didn't as the judges believed she meant no harm and they probably have doubts themselves about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines just a lot of people at this point.

Cancer may involve chemotherapy at some point. However you are not getting vaccinated for cancer as cancer is not a communicable disease. (only exception you get an HPV vaccine so not to get cervical cancer).

What I've posted in bold is just your opinion on how events happened, nothing more, and my post was about the slippery slope of allowing a Nurse or any other health practioners beliefs to affect their job, which is why standards of practice are set.

www.nmc.org.uk...

Yes that's why I have said 'probably' but it's a real possibility. Nobody can be inside the heads of the judges but we can guess.

And i could be correct.

Or completely incorrect...

That also could be the case since we don't know what is inside the minds of the judges. But we do know for sure that she won't send time in jail and we can guess the reasons

1) Not enough evidence
2) Unclear motive (although the motive is clear to all of us)
3) Judges decided she didn't mean any harm as she just injected them with salty water
4) Judges being suspicious about the vaccines and the vaccination campaign

I think 2) 3) 4) are likely to have contributed in the decision.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Evidence for your conclusions 1-4?

None.

Just your bias.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Evidence for your conclusions 1-4?

None.

Just your bias.

From the text itself

The accused had shared various conspiracy theories on the Internet and on social media,” the court spokesperson said, per the Mail. “However, the chamber could not determine with the necessary certainty that this set of ideas was the motive for her actions and that she then acted to sabotage a vaccination campaign.

The paragraph talks about unclear motive.

So no, there are explanations in the article and you can guess the other (if any)

I don't think I am biased as I am guessing on what basis she didn't go to jail.

You seem very uncomfortable with these conversations by the way and you suppose to be a law graduate...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

A law graduate?


That was in the 80s. I've been qualified quite a while now.

Uncomfortable?

If you say so.

Stop being so pompous and get over yourself?

Other opinions are available. Not just yours.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2


My best guess is, more than half of her "victims" came forth and told the court they consentend.

I'd say the judge has spoken, what are you suggesting your opinion is less biased than the judges? Lol

a reply to: Terpene

Best guess? Based on what, exactly?

I'm going with the actual verdict. Not my opinion.

But you are going with yours?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

On the base that they could have destroyed her, but went kind of mild.
It's pure speculation, I know your honor

a reply to: Terpene

Weak judiciary.

How shocking?

a reply to: Kurokage

She probably saved lives. She's a hero.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

A law graduate?


That was in the 80s. I've been qualified quite a while now.

Uncomfortable?

If you say so.

Stop being so pompous and get over yourself?

Other opinions are available. Not just yours.

You said that I have bias because of the different options I considered on why she didn't go to jail. One can make reasonable guesses

1) Not enough evidence
2) Unclear motive (although the motive is clear to all of us)
3) Judges decided she didn't mean any harm as she just injected them with salty water
4) Judges being suspicious about the vaccines and the vaccination campaign


From the text again

The accused had shared various conspiracy theories on the Internet and on social media,” the court spokesperson said, per the Mail. “However, the chamber could not determine with the necessary certainty that this set of ideas was the motive for her actions and that she then acted to sabotage a vaccination campaign

It looks like 2) is covered in the article as the chamber couldn't determine with certainty her motive. So I think I am correct on this one.

Although we all know what her motive is. She doesn't 'believe' that these vaccines are safe and effective. It's clear but the judges didn't want to join her and this could be due to 3) and 4)

Yes we can all guess at this point but we don't live in a world of absolute uncertainty.