@taty.sant:

Taty Santtos
Taty Santtos
Open In TikTok:
Region: BR
Thursday 09 July 2026 17:14:06 GMT
41250
666
27
58

Music

Download

Comments

edneidefernandes12
Edneide Fernandes205 :
Não creio!
2026-07-09 17:49:18
3
neusa.vilhena
Neusa Vilhena :
meu Deus que coisa kkkkkk
2026-07-09 17:43:36
2
claudia.isabel.ai
Claudia Isabel Aires Fernandes :
só oque faltava
2026-07-09 22:15:00
0
veracarvalhooficial
Vera :
muitas coisas acontecendo falar disso e Brasil mesmo 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
2026-07-09 18:17:26
3
sandro.luciano.da
Sandro Luciano da Silva :
aposta é aposta tem que honrar
2026-07-09 22:06:40
0
jacira.dos.santos94
Jacira dos Santos :
Mas não é brincadeira?🤔
2026-07-09 17:29:55
1
luiz1818
Luiz 1818 :
A estrada de barro 😂
2026-07-09 22:03:22
0
celinha.lopes6
Celinha Lopes :
2026-07-09 21:53:26
0
elietealmeida473
Eliete Almeida :
meu Deus e cada absurdo qui agente fica sabendo nas redes sociais
2026-07-09 21:37:37
0
simplesmente_taty
Taty_Santos369 :
Eu vi kkkkkkk
2026-07-09 18:22:38
1
mariajos8714
mariajos8714 :
eu tinha ido no cartório primeiro
2026-07-09 20:19:26
0
vanildabalmant
Vanilda Balmant :
êla postou chebil
2026-07-09 18:36:32
0
helenice538
helenice :
misericórdia é cada uma
2026-07-09 20:26:38
0
lurdes8926
Lurdes :
ele tem que cumprir A aposta
2026-07-09 19:20:28
1
itamarsouza56
itamarsouza56 :
amiga chibiu não e de trás não chibiu e o bicho mesmo 🤣🤣
2026-07-09 21:06:33
0
claudeteaparecid828
Claudete Aparecida :
É tonga mesmo 🤣🤣
2026-07-09 20:03:06
0
leidianemarques42
leidy2026🌹 :
NAO APOSTO MEU CANECO D JEITO NEBHUM KKKKK
2026-07-09 21:43:39
0
charlesoliveira2522
charlesoliveira2522 :
Se ela arriscou a apostar o "biotônico" pela derrota do Brasil, ela tem todo direito de receber a aposta. Se há testemunha, basta procurar a justiça.
2026-07-09 19:27:35
0
lourencio017
lourencio :
lasqueira meu
2026-07-09 21:47:57
0
rozanemaria3
Rozane Maria :
😳
2026-07-09 18:14:55
0
isaisabel.santos5
isa santos :
😁😁😁
2026-07-09 20:14:52
0
lucia.da.conceio3
Lucia da Conceição Teixeira :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-07-09 17:57:05
0
elenilva.reis
Elenilva Reis :
😂😂😂
2026-07-09 19:28:03
0
To see more videos from user @taty.sant, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Legal and Medical Assessment of the Proof Requirement under Section 20 IfSG with Particular Consideration of Medical Contraindications (Neomycin Sulfate) and the Inalienable International-Law Protection Rights of IOV-Registered Civilians 1. Background In administrative practice, Section 20 IfSG is frequently misinterpreted as establishing a de facto vaccination obligation, although the law does not provide for such an obligation. This leads to unlawful administrative demands, particularly where medical contraindications exist or individuals are subject to special international-law protection. The situation is aggravated when authorities independently assess medical facts or exert indirect pressure. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the applicable legal and medical standards under Section 20 IfSG and to outline the inalienable international-law protection rights of IOV-registered civilians. 2. Proof Requirement, Not Vaccination Obligation Section 20(8), sentence 1 IfSG establishes no vaccination mandate, but a statutory obligation to provide proof of measles immunity for certain persons and activities. The legislator deliberately refrained from imposing a direct vaccination obligation. The requirement is fulfilled once one of the legally provided proofs is submitted. No obligation to undergo a medical intervention arises from Section 20 IfSG. 3. Medical Contraindication as Equivalent Proof Pursuant to Section 20(9), sentence 2 IfSG, the proof requirement is also fulfilled by submitting a medical certificate confirming a contraindication to measles vaccination. Recognized contraindications include hypersensitivity to vaccine components. Measles vaccines may contain neomycin or neomycin sulfate as manufacturing residues; neomycin may also be present in other vaccines depending on product information. A known allergy or hypersensitivity to neomycin or neomycin sulfate constitutes a medically relevant contraindication under generally accepted medical standards. A corresponding medical certificate is legally equivalent to proof of vaccination and fully satisfies Section 20 IfSG. 4. Limits of Administrative Authority The determination of a medical contraindication lies exclusively with the treating physician. Administrative authorities lack legal competence to independently assess contraindications, demand additional medical documentation, or reject medical certificates without concrete evidence of inaccuracy. Such actions exceed statutory authority. 5. Legal Consequences Any demand for measles vaccination despite a properly issued medical certificate of contraindication is not covered by Section 20 IfSG. Equally unlawful is any indirect coercion through access restrictions, administrative conditions, or factual pressure. 6. International-Law Protection Rights (Articles 8 and 147, Fourth Geneva Convention) Civilians registered with the IOV fall under the special protection of international humanitarian law. Under Article 8 GC IV, civilians are specially protected persons, and the protection of their physical and mental integrity is inalienable. Article 147 GC IV classifies medical measures without lawful basis or in disregard of medical contraindications as grave breaches of international law. 7. Conclusion Section 20 IfSG establishes a proof requirement, not a vaccination obligation. Medical contraindications, including neomycin sulfate allergy, are legally recognized, and medical certificates constitute full legal proof. Authorities lack medical reassessment competence. For IOV-registered civilians, international-law protections under Articles 8 and 147 GC IV are mandatory. Divergent administrative practice is incompatible with national and international law. Core Statement A known neomycin allergy is not limited to specific vaccinations but requires individual medical assessment of vaccine composition for each intended vaccination. #vaccines #impfungen #humanitarianlaw #menschenrechte #health
Legal and Medical Assessment of the Proof Requirement under Section 20 IfSG with Particular Consideration of Medical Contraindications (Neomycin Sulfate) and the Inalienable International-Law Protection Rights of IOV-Registered Civilians 1. Background In administrative practice, Section 20 IfSG is frequently misinterpreted as establishing a de facto vaccination obligation, although the law does not provide for such an obligation. This leads to unlawful administrative demands, particularly where medical contraindications exist or individuals are subject to special international-law protection. The situation is aggravated when authorities independently assess medical facts or exert indirect pressure. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the applicable legal and medical standards under Section 20 IfSG and to outline the inalienable international-law protection rights of IOV-registered civilians. 2. Proof Requirement, Not Vaccination Obligation Section 20(8), sentence 1 IfSG establishes no vaccination mandate, but a statutory obligation to provide proof of measles immunity for certain persons and activities. The legislator deliberately refrained from imposing a direct vaccination obligation. The requirement is fulfilled once one of the legally provided proofs is submitted. No obligation to undergo a medical intervention arises from Section 20 IfSG. 3. Medical Contraindication as Equivalent Proof Pursuant to Section 20(9), sentence 2 IfSG, the proof requirement is also fulfilled by submitting a medical certificate confirming a contraindication to measles vaccination. Recognized contraindications include hypersensitivity to vaccine components. Measles vaccines may contain neomycin or neomycin sulfate as manufacturing residues; neomycin may also be present in other vaccines depending on product information. A known allergy or hypersensitivity to neomycin or neomycin sulfate constitutes a medically relevant contraindication under generally accepted medical standards. A corresponding medical certificate is legally equivalent to proof of vaccination and fully satisfies Section 20 IfSG. 4. Limits of Administrative Authority The determination of a medical contraindication lies exclusively with the treating physician. Administrative authorities lack legal competence to independently assess contraindications, demand additional medical documentation, or reject medical certificates without concrete evidence of inaccuracy. Such actions exceed statutory authority. 5. Legal Consequences Any demand for measles vaccination despite a properly issued medical certificate of contraindication is not covered by Section 20 IfSG. Equally unlawful is any indirect coercion through access restrictions, administrative conditions, or factual pressure. 6. International-Law Protection Rights (Articles 8 and 147, Fourth Geneva Convention) Civilians registered with the IOV fall under the special protection of international humanitarian law. Under Article 8 GC IV, civilians are specially protected persons, and the protection of their physical and mental integrity is inalienable. Article 147 GC IV classifies medical measures without lawful basis or in disregard of medical contraindications as grave breaches of international law. 7. Conclusion Section 20 IfSG establishes a proof requirement, not a vaccination obligation. Medical contraindications, including neomycin sulfate allergy, are legally recognized, and medical certificates constitute full legal proof. Authorities lack medical reassessment competence. For IOV-registered civilians, international-law protections under Articles 8 and 147 GC IV are mandatory. Divergent administrative practice is incompatible with national and international law. Core Statement A known neomycin allergy is not limited to specific vaccinations but requires individual medical assessment of vaccine composition for each intended vaccination. #vaccines #impfungen #humanitarianlaw #menschenrechte #health

About