MP Stepaņenko: Only politicians and specialists close to them consider AstraZeneca a safe vaccine

In the fight against the vaccine shortage against Covid-19, Latvia has stated that it will contact the Danish authorities to find out if it would be possible to receive the AstraZeneca vaccines, which Denmark has refused to use. While many enthusiastically like this idea, there are politicians who believe that fighting vaccine shortages in this way is unacceptable and irresponsible to the health of the country's population.

"Go, gather all the expired medicine in the world. You don't feel sorry for the people of Latvia at all," in response to the statement of the Minister of Health Daniels Pavļuts that Latvia will contact Denmark, said Jūlija Stepanenko, a non-fraction member of the Saeima, who is one of the founders of Aldis Gobzems' Law and Order party (Likums un kārtība).

The politician has also been trying to relax various restrictions throughout the pandemic. For example, she opposed the unrealized requirement for pupils to wear mouth and nose masks throughout the school year and has tried to ensure that children are allowed to exercise.

However, the Minister of Health insists that, given the current incidence of Covid-19, it is necessary to establish a moratorium on further relaxation of security measures and restrictions.

The Minister notes that currently, the 14-day cumulative rate per 100,000 inhabitants has again exceeded the limit of 400 cases. At the same time, the seven-day cumulative morbidity rate per 100,000 population is stagnant, with the situation not deteriorating in recent days.

Lithuania has also announced that it will turn to Denmark, asking it to share its unused AstraZeneca vaccines. Global statistics show that a very small number of recipients of this vaccine have very serious side effects, but you call the use of these vaccines dangerous. Why?

I take into account other information that is also as publicly available, as verifiable and credible as what you said about Lithuania. It is no secret that side effects have been registered, they are dangerous and people have suffered from this vaccine. I don't think anyone would argue against that. It is also worth checking and comparing the information that the side effects of this vaccine may be greater than those of other vaccines. The information should also be assessed in the light of the experience of other countries.

I think it's no secret that the big vaccine manufacturers are, of course, interested in us buying vaccines, and that is a fact that no one disputes.

What we ourselves found about AstraZeneca is that it is really true that its representatives took part in the meeting at which it was decided which vaccines to buy for Latvia. This suggests that Latvia is probably closer to one manufacturer or further away from another manufacturer. There is reason to think of possible bias here. The fact that this vaccine is dangerous from the point of view of other countries is a fact, but the fact that Latvia has not recognized it as worthy of caution is only the opinion of politicians and specialists associated to them, which differs from the opinion of other doctors.

And I'm not talking about the alternative view that is against vaccination as such, I'm talking about people relying on the latest research and being more cautious.

Today, the Mandate, Ethics and Submissions Committee will consider the ethics violation case initiated against you regarding statements about colleague Ilmārs Dūrītis. Its beginning can be traced to a harsh discussion on children's sports. What was the basis of your disagreement?

The Saeima had received a draft law related to the Vaccination Bureau, which had received several proposals from deputies, including not only on the liquidation of the Vaccination Bureau, but also on children's sports and other easing of restrictions.

What caused me great indignation was, in my opinion, the irresponsible actions of Mr. Dūrītis, as the parliamentary secretary of the Ministry of Health, to return this proposal back to the committee shortly before the second reading. He needed it because the Ministry of Health wanted to discuss in the committee how to liquidate the Vaccination Bureau more leniently and to present its proposal for a more lenient way of closing the Bureau, even though our proposals were the same.

This would have and did delay the bill, which had already been delayed for one week by the Ministry of Health's desire to protect the Vaccination Bureau, and then this move, by returning it to the committee, which further delayed the pending proposals and risked losing another week. Meanwhile, the desperate coaches, parents and children continued to wait for the Saeima. It was too much, and that's why I was so outraged. I have never been as angry as I was at that sitting, because, despite Members' proposals on children's sports, which have been waiting since January, the Vaccination Bureau was a priority for some, so that it does not completely disappear from the face of the earth.

This was the essence of my statement, and yes, I pointed out that Mr. Dūrītis' voting behavior and attitude towards various initiatives show that he is not and will never be a parent. This is my prediction and my assumption, which is based on my observations.

You are involved in the newly established Saeima working group, which will focus on rare disease patients. Why was it made, and what are the aims of this working group?

A distinction must be made between working groups, which are used by someone to vanish an issue, but this is not a working group. This is an interest group set up in parallel with the oncological patient support group.

As Kaspars Ģirģens, the initiator of this group, pointed out, this issue must be taken under one's wings because the work with the Ministry of Health is not going so well, because it stipulates that everyone is doing not too good and everyone needs money.

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.