CommonSenseTV Get real!

Support the real news!

Our Facebook, Twitter and Telegram

A few questions for the Agency for Care & Health….

I received an 'invitation for a free vaccination' from the health and care agency.


Well, I'm not a big fan of 'free' as a rule. I'm way too suspicious for that.

Free is worthless.

Both for the receiver and for the giver. Free is never valued by the recipient, because free has no value in the eyes of the recipient. Free is never free in real life, there is always a catch. Recently I read a nice expression about free:

When something is free, you are the product!


Anyway, I have an invitation for a free vaccination. The invitation is full of the usual crap, which will be swallowed and pricked by most people indiscriminately.


The unified narrative of governments and mainstream media worldwide is in such an unbelievably great contrast to the dissenting voices of doctors, scientists and lawyers around the world, it's almost impossible to comprehend.

The authorities:

There is a very dangerous virus. Everyone gets sick, everyone dies. We need this, we need that. Sister is no longer allowed, so is not allowed anymore. We have to test, test, test. We have to poke, poke, poke. The virologists and the pharmaceutical industry are the only ones who know what's good for us.

These words were put in a very large balloon and that balloon was then blown full of air.

This huge balloon should carry weight for the positions of governments.


The scientists:

Where is the virus then? Not many people get sick. It only seems that way through testing. Not that many people die, not more than usual. They don't test it. Those measures don't work. The efficacy of vaccines is a combination of fiddling with numbers and ineffective PCR tests. Those 'vaccines' have been proven to be ineffective and even dangerous. We have evidence, we have peer-reviewed research reports on all these topics, we are concerned!

This enormous amount of scientifically based points of view, visions and diagnoses should carry the weight of the scientists.


The journalists:

'Balloon popped quickly', sensible people would think. But that is beyond the jury! The jury in the form of the mainstream media. Radio, television, newspapers and opinion magazines are not looking for facts, especially not if they are substantiated facts.

The journalists have a story to tell. And let it be the case that virtually all journalism and all mainstream media is directly or indirectly under government control.

And this is how the journalists judge that the inflated balloon is not only the most, but even weight on the scale.


I would love to have an explanation of why all scientists are so terribly wrong and why the government narrative is so incredibly true. But there is no dialogue between governments and scientists. Not even after all the efforts of the independent media such as Virus Truth, Virus Madness, CommonSenseTV and many others.

That is why I decided to put my questions directly to the Administrator General of the Agency for Care & Health through this letter: (illustrations have been added by me to this article and are not part of the letter)


Agency Care & Health

Attn the honorable Mr. Dr. Dirk Dewolf

Koning Albert II avenue 35

1030 Brussels


Subject: invitation covid-19 vaccination


2 June 2021


Dear Mr Dewolf,

I received your invitation for a free vaccination. The invitation says that the vaccination is important for my health. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for your concern for my health.

I am also very concerned with my health and I try to eat as healthy as possible and exercise as much as possible. Maybe that's why I'm never really sick. Not physically and not mentally. I also do not take any medicines and I have not had any vaccines injected since I was a child.

That is why I started to delve a little bit into the how and why of this invitation to vaccination. The information leaflet states that the vaccine prevents me from getting covid-19 and that it is safe and extensively tested. The invitation also states that every vaccine works and again that it ensures that I do not get sick from covid-19. It also states: They are strictly checked for safety, reliability and quality.


I'm a bit confused by the word 'become'. Does that mean that the checks on safety, reliability and quality still have to take place? Or is it happening right now? Doesn't that imply that your conclusions cannot yet be drawn?

This doubt has led me to delve a little further into the ins and outs of the virus and the vaccine on offer, and this has led to a series of questions that I would like to put to you.


1: What can you tell me about the isolated detection of the virus in question? I read here and there that that has not yet been done and therefore this virus is still a theoretical assumption.


2: How is it possible that there is a (PCR) test to detect the virus? The authorization documents of the pcr test to detect sars-cov-2, both in the US and in Europe, already state that no virus isolate has been found.


3: How can it be that vaccines have been developed for a virus that is based on a theoretical assumption?


4: Several ministers and veterinarians have claimed that the vaccine has already been extensively tested and approved. But I read in official documents that the vaccine has been authorized for research use in an emergency procedure and therefore has not yet been approved. Can you explain to me how that is?


5: I read here and there that manufacturers of the vaccines are not responsible for the operation and are not responsible for any adverse effects, damage and even death from these vaccines. Is that right? Isn't that a bit weird? Who is responsible then?


6: Is it true that in early March 2021, a group of doctors led by Professor Bhakdi, along with ten other scientists and medics, highlighted blood clotting problems and pointed out the potential dangers of the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines in a open letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA)? The signatories believe that the issue of blood clotting disorders associated with gene-based COVID-19 has not been properly addressed?

And is it true that they have made an urgent appeal to the CDC and the EMA to stop these vaccine experiments because of already proven enormous short-term damage and for causing much greater damage in the longer term? If true, why has the CDC and EMA ignored these calls?


7: Are you aware that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports many thousands of deaths and many hundreds of thousands, often serious, side effects from the vaccines?

And it seems that registration of deaths and side effects to VAERS is voluntary and research has shown that only 1 to 10% of deaths and side effects are actually reported. That would mean that the actual numbers are 10 to 100 times higher. Isn't that very disturbing?


8: Are you familiar with EudraVigilance and the number of deaths and, often serious, side effects reported, presumably as a result of, but at least shortly after, vaccination with the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccine? In their latest report through May 22, they report more than 12.000 deaths and nearly 1,2 million side effects, half of which are serious.


9: Are you aware that the deaths from/after the vaccines mainly concern people between the ages of 18 and 64? Where the deaths by/with the virus mainly concern people aged 70 and older, even with an average age of 83 years!


10: Do you have an explanation for the fact that some countries, for example the Netherlands and Italy, report a lot of deaths and side effects to the EMA (EudraVigilance) and that other countries, for example Belgium and Spain, have made very few reports. Notifications must be made by the national health authorities and by the licensees, the manufacturers of the vaccines. What conclusion would you draw from the differences per country?


11: Is this vaccine really a vaccine? I read here and there that it is an mRNA or Vector/trans gene therapy.


12: Are you aware that no mRNA or trans gene therapy has ever been successfully developed and approved for use in humans?


13: Is it correct that the law governing the use of gene therapies has recently been changed. Where it was previously forbidden to allow gene therapies, this is suddenly allowed with the amendment of the law. I came across this amendment of the European Parliament:


Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials and the provision of medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms for the treatment or prevention of coronavirus disease ( COVID-19).


And in that amendment it states, among other things:


…. Given the unprecedented public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, priority must be given to protecting public health. Therefore, for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or as long as COVID-19 is a public health emergency, a temporary exemption from the requirements for prior environmental risk assessment and authorization under Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009 should be granted /41/EC. The exemption should be limited to clinical trials of investigational medicinal products containing or containing GMOs for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.


It says the waiver should be limited to clinical trials… But now it seems like everyone around the world is getting involved in the clinical trials. Can you explain to me how this is?


14: Are you aware that a group of 160 doctors and scientists from 30 different countries have prepared an urgent warning letter? In this letter, in which they seriously question the necessity, effectiveness and safety, among other things, they also warn of the legal consequences for those who administer vaccines, as the suppliers of the vaccines enjoy immunity. They have published a detailed substantiation of their views.


15: Are you aware that FranceSoir has published a report of 57 other medical scientists who have expressed similar concerns about the effectiveness and especially the safety of the vaccines and calling for an immediate cessation of vaccination campaigns.


16: If it is true that this is a gene therapy and also an experiment, are you, and many governments with you, not violating all 10 rules of the Nuremberg Code?

In that case, you do not violate Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949?


“The High Contracting Parties expressly agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure causing physical suffering or extermination of protected persons under its control. This prohibition covers not only deprivation of life, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation, and medical or scientific experiments which do not require the medical treatment of a protected person, but also all other forms of roughness applied by civilian or military officials.”


Do you not violate the UDHR, national and European legislation in the field of self-determination and inviolability of one's own body?


You may argue that it is not mandatory to be injected, but failing to properly inform the participants of the experiment is itself a crime and violation of the Nuremberg Code. Moreover, excluding from social activities and imposing travel restrictions on people who do not participate in the experiment is equivalent to urgently or even coercively imposing participation. And that violates all the above laws.


On the one hand, I fully understand that governments are committed to getting out of this pandemic as quickly as possible and I am pleased that governments are sparing no expense to fight for the health of its citizens. But after all this time, can't we just start to wonder if we're really dealing with a pandemic here? The fact is that for 16 months, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, we have had to be constantly reminded by radio, TV, newspapers, politicians and veterinarians that a pandemic is happening. Worst in over 100 years! But when I ask people (and I have done that many times) if they know someone personally who has had to go to the hospital and/or died in the past 16 months, the answer is usually negative or at most one or 2 people. they know. But, they quickly add, he also had cancer and was 87 years old. Even our local doctor told me that in all that time she has only sent someone to the hospital for covid-2 treatment on 19 occasions.

With all the other information I've come across, I wonder if we're on the right track. I am not a doctor or a microbiologist, but if many leading doctors and microbiologists worldwide are sounding the alarm about the vaccines, then it could be that something serious is going on?


There are many citizens who are convinced that once they have taken the vaccine, nothing can happen to them. That's good for those people. But those people do require everyone else to be vaccinated as well. This is also apparent from your writing. But if someone is protected by his vaccine and feels happy with it, then it is no problem for that person if another person is not vaccinated? If I have my seat belt on and another motorist is not, isn't that other motorist only endangering himself and not me?

However, the crux of the problem seems to be this: It is stated, even in official manufacturer documents, as opposed to government documents, that if you are vaccinated, you can still get infected and others can still get infected. to contaminate. If so, then this whole spraying experiment seems completely unnecessary and unnecessarily risky to me.


Dear Mr Dewolf, as a genuinely concerned citizen, I am really curious about your view on this matter and your answers to my questions.


With very high regard, I sign,



Marcel van Tol




Everyone is free to use the text from the letter or parts thereof if you want to write to a government agency yourself.



Here is another translation of the full text of the Nuremberg Code as recorded in the decision of the Doctors' Trial:

  1. The subject's voluntary consent is absolutely necessary
    This means that the person concerned must be legally authorized to give consent; must be able to make his or her free choice without the intervention of any force, fraud, deception, or any other form of restriction or coercion; and must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject in question so that he or she is able to make an informed choice. The latter requires that before the subject can confirm his or her choice, the nature, duration and purpose of the experiment must be made clear; the method and means by which it is carried out; all reasonably foreseeable inconveniences and risks; and the impact on health or on the person who may participate in the experiment.
    The duty and responsibility for determining the quality of consent rests with the person who initiates, directs, or participates in the experiment. This is a personal duty and responsibility that cannot be transferred to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment must be designed to produce fruitful results for society that cannot be achieved by other methods or means, and not be arbitrary and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be designed and based on the results of animal testing and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under investigation, such that the expected results justify conducting the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be conducted in such a way as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental distress and injury.
  5. An experiment should not be conducted when there is a priori reason to believe that death or disability will result; except perhaps in the event that the executive physicians themselves also serve as test subjects.
  6. The risk taken with the experiment should never be greater than the humanitarian importance of the problem that the experiment is intended to solve.
  7. Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities should be provided to protect the subject from possible injury, disability or death.
  8. The experiment should only be performed by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care must be required of the persons directing or conducting the experiment at all stages of the experiment.
  9. Throughout the course of the experiment, the subject should be free to terminate the experiment if he or she has reached a physical or mental state that makes continuing the experiment seem impossible to him or her.
  10. Throughout the course of the experiment, the responsible scientist must be prepared to discontinue the experiment, at any stage, if he or she has reason to believe, using the common sense, superior skill and careful judgment he or she is required that continuation of the experiment will result in injury, disability, or death to the subject.
5 25 To vote
Article review
Subscribe now
Subscribe to
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
newest most voted
Inline feedback
See all comments
Dutch NL English EN French FR German DE Spanish ES
What is your response to this?x