Discover more from Edward Slavsquat
Sputnik V NOT included on list of mandatory vaccines for mobilized Russians
Ministry of Defense decides the current "epidemiological situation" does not warrant compulsory COVID vaccination
The Russian Ministry of Defense has determined that in the current “epidemiological situation,” COVID vaccination will not be required for mobilized reservists.
Explain.rf, an official information portal, writes:
The list of vaccinations is determined by specialists of the Ministry of Defense based on the epidemiological situation.
Now mobilized people are vaccinated against the following diseases:
ADSM (diphtheria and tetanus)
The Russian Ministry of Defense adopted a compulsory COVID vaccination decree for all military personnel in June 2021. On September 23, 2022, Explain.rf announced that this same decree applied to recently mobilized Russians:
Medical care for military personnel is a priority for the state. In accordance with the Decree of the Chief Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Ministry of Defense dated June 18, 2021 No. 129, mandatory immunization applies to all categories of military personnel, including those called up for mobilization.
Vaccination is essential to prevent the occurrence of any epidemics. Therefore, it is mandatory for conscripts and military personnel and is carried out according to the vaccination calendar and according to epidemiological indications.
While mobilized reservists are subject to COVID vaccination, the Ministry of Defense has determined that mandating the shot is not necessary given the current “epidemiological indications.”
For the time being, mobilized Russians will NOT be required to receive “safe and effective” Sputnik V shots. The “epidemiological indications” could “change”—and this is something we will keep a close eye on—but there is no reason to doubt this new information provided by Explain.rf.
A few thoughts and observations:
On September 23, we posted a message on Telegram that referenced the Russian MOD’s compulsory vaccination policy (which is real, and was enforced). We asked whether this policy would also apply to mobilized Russians:
When Tatarstan confirmed it would vaccinate mobilized residents (after reportedly “consulting” with the Ministry of Defense)—and when several other regions (including Moscow Region) acknowledged compulsory COVID vaccination applied to mobilized reservists—we received an answer to our question: Yes, the same June 2021 decree applied to Russians called up during partial mobilization.
As we wrote on October 5:
COVID vaccination is mandatory for all military personnel. The only question is how many mobilized Russians will be subjected to this insane policy.
The information we now have makes it clear that, at least for now, the number of newly mobilized Russians who will be subjected to compulsory COVID vaccination is zero.
We reported on this story using the best official information at our disposal. That information has changed.
There were two errors in our reporting that we fully admit to and take full responsibility for:
Because the mandatory vaccination decree is based on the current “epidemiological situation,” we should have been more careful to point out that the Ministry of Defense could simply decide that vaccination was not necessary. As it turns out, that’s exactly what has happened.
We learned about the update from Explain.rf early this morning (from an October 9 report published by a local media outlet in Bryansk). However, the list of mandatory vaccinations published by Explain.rf is dated October 6. We regret that we didn’t find this information sooner. While this new information wasn’t yet available when we wrote our response to Röper’s “hoax” allegation from October 4, we still should have spotted it sooner.
This blog is dedicated to exposing (and hopefully ending) anti-human “biosecurity” in Russia. Like many countries around the world, the Russian government has sought to “normalize” COVID, making it into a “permanent” health risk requiring regular vaccination.
For example, yesterday (October 9), Health Minister Mikhail Murashko announced that Sputnik V could be “combined” with influenza shots:
Via RIA Novosti:
Nasal vaccination against coronavirus infection can be combined with influenza vaccination, said Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko.
“The population really perceives (a nasal vaccine) better than injecting [the vaccine], it is easier to administer the vaccine intranasally ... It can be combined simultaneously with the flu vaccine,” Murashko told reporters.
He clarified that vaccination against influenza and coronavirus is being actively carried out in the Kemerovo region. The region received nozzles for the introduction of a nasal vaccine, the minister noted.
A day earlier, Murashko claimed the situation with coronavirus in Russia remained “tense,” and urged Russians to “undergo revaccination.”
And of course, we shouldn’t forget about the two mRNA vaccines current under development by the Gamaleya Center and the Vector Institute.
A closing thought:
We are only interested in the facts. What about Röper?
Röper claims COVID vaccination has only been mandatory for Russian doctors, and asserts vaccine decrees (which were adopted by every region in Russia) “could hardly be implemented in practice.” This is false. It’s not even up for debate. He needs to correct these statements.
Röper also claims that there is no compulsory COVID vaccination in the Russian military. Also completely false. Compulsory vaccination was implemented in June 2021, and all available evidence shows it was carried out—at least up until December 2021. He is denying objective reality. He needs to correct this statement.
Röper defends Sputnik V and claims he is unaware of any “serious side effects” linked to this completely unproven genetic experiment. This is beyond comprehension. Röper needs to acknowledge the obvious and documented questions about Sputnik V’s “safety and efficacy.” We would also like to know why he is so insistent on carrying water for a barely tested AstraZeneca clone.
UK Column parroted Röper’s claims without any meaningful scrutiny. We hope that in the future they will provide more comprehensive, objective coverage of these issues.