With this letter [1] dated 08-oct-2025, @EMA_News requests that I delete all nonpublic data and tells me that disclosing, copying, distributing, reproducing, making publicly available or taking any action in reliance of the contents of the nonpublic data is strictly prohibited. 1. What is it that EMA considers nonpublic data? The World Wide Unique Case Identifier and the Occurrence Country. (and other nonpublic data, without giving details). People who suffer adverse reactions from medication or vaccines can either themselves or via their relatives or doctors report this to their respective National Competent Authority (NCA) or directly to the Market Authorization Holder (MAH). The NCA or MAH generates an Individual Case Safety Report (ICSR) and each ICSR is assigned a World Wide Unique Case Identifier (WWUID) [2]. This WWUID never changes during the life-cycle of an ICSR. Each reporter (patient, relative or doctor) that submits a case, receives a confirmation from the NCA or MAH, with this WWUCID. 2. Can a patient, relative or doctor track their case in EMA? NO, impossible. EMA's access policy[3] says: "For data protection reasons and to avoid the risk of patient/reporter reidentification, the “EudraVigilance Local Report Number” is therefore displayed at the adrreports.eu portal for the public. The “EudraVigilance Local Report Number” is assigned by the EudraVigilance system and is an alphanumeric code without semantic information." In easy words: “We show a random code instead of the WWUCID so no one can link back to the patient.” The reality is that each case is assigned a NEW Local Report Number, each time a case is updated. That makes the case a floating duck, untraceable by the patient/reporter. The result: The patient gets a “tracking number” that breaks on every update. So transparency = zero. This is not compliant with GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) — transparency in spirit, even if technically legal. 3. What about the nonpublic Country of Occurrence? EMA claims that the country field may indirectly identify a natural person. This -of course- is utterly nonsense. In support to my view, take a look at EMA's dashboard (opens a new tab to the 1,274,646 Pfizer/BionTech cases): a. Open this url to EMA: dap.ema.europa.eu/analyticsS… b. Navigate to the 3rd tab titled "Number of Individual Cases by EEA countries" Do you see Countries? MeToo. Doesn't that contradict what they write in their letter to me? 180%. 4. Why does EMA demand removal of my dashboards? Well, this is really something I would like to talk about with someone inside EMA that is able to communicate in a slightly more constructive manner than their Comms Department [4]. As a token of good faith, I've voluntarily adapted my slide-deck of my presentation at backtothefuture.nu. And today I have temporarily disabled public access to two of my dashboards (here: public.tableau.com/app/profi…) French scientists @EmmaDarles, @PavanVincent received a similar letter from EMA, as you can read below. I really look forward to our upcoming meeting :) I need to sleep so this is it for now. I value feedback (@EMA_News especially), please let's keep things respectful to each other. PS: I share the letter for transparency and am allowed to do so as the letter states: "Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged." [1] Last Friday 24-oct-2025, I found this letter by coincidence in my spam-folder. One day before my talk at the backtothefuture.nu conference... [2] See ICH E2B(R3) ICSR Structure, page 25 of database.ich.org/sites/defau… [3] EMA Data Access Policy, page 4 of ema.europa.eu/system/files/d… [4] "We (EMA) are aware of Aukema's misleading claims...", 28-sep-2022, Blckbx TV, blckbx.tv/uploads/_1624x921_…