Response to the British Government Proposal to Roll Out A COVD-19 Vaccine Before Christmas
The British government (Prime Minister Boris Johnson pictured) are running a public consultation with a view to cutting every corner and safe-guard in order to roll out a COVID vaccine campaign before Christmas (the British “warp-speed”). presumably with the Oxford/Astra-Zeneca product in mind. For anyone who wants to respond it ends this Friday (18 September). This is how I have responded to the on-line form.
Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products
The urgency of the situation in which such a decision needs to be taken is heavily in doubt. While the government has taken it upon itself to place restrictions on the public from which it would gladly be alleviated the hospitalisation and fatality rates for the virus have been in continuous decline since the spring - if indeed there is a continuing infection rate this presumably confers more certain immunity than any putative vaccine. None of the initial candidate products purports to offer strong immunity so it is hard to see even if there were any good reasons for the present restrictions that the introduction of these products would offer sufficient grounds for their removal. It is more likely that they would simply contribute to public confusion.
As I understand it the decision to distribute unlicensed vaccines (or licensed ones) will be taken by the JCVI. The JCVI is described as an “independent” body, but of what? The chair of the JCVI, Andrew Pollard, is lead developer of the Oxford/Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which has been backed by the government to the tune of at least £100 million. In February 2014 Pollard chaired a meeting of the JCVI which recommended the Bexsero Men B vaccine to the schedule of which he was also lead developer, which became part of Conservative window-dressing at the 2015 election. Even if Pollard recuses himself the “independence” of any decision will be in doubt - apart from anything else at its February 2016 meeting the JCVI enjoyed the hospitality of Pollard’s research institution, the Martin School, and his Oxford College, St Cross. It is not reported that any members protested. Dissent at JCVI meetings had never been reported, indeed no votes ever seem to be recorded.
Should a decision be delayed beyond the end of the year it will come under the remit of the licensing authority, the MHRA. The MHRA is entirely funded by the industry for the licensing of medicines and biologicals, and also advised by Prof Pollard. In 2009 the MHRA - at the time of the swine flu scare - failed to detect an association between the GSK vaccine Pandemrix and the condition of narcolepsy, and remained uncontrite in BMJ correspondence as late as 2018. It is illusory at the present time to suppose the licensure in itself provides grounds for confidence. The government in fact has no existing processes to ensure confidence. The government also assumes that anything “authorised” will subsequently be “licensed” which further calls the independence of the process into question. What if it turned out to be not just “temporary”
Civil liability and immunity
The document maintains that it would be unfair to manufacturers to have to sustain liability, but it is not clear why it would be fair to the public who have already had incredible costs loaded on to them, whether any suit was against the manufacturer (to be reimbursed by the government) or against the government itself, the cost of which would then be passed to the public, if successful. Admittedly, in almost any circumstances the Legal Aid Agency will fail to support such litigation (a dramatic instance would be Vioxx), so it is somewhat theoretical: whatever happens the manufacturer makes a killing and there is little sanction on them to ensure safety, let alone that you will not catch the disease.
Ultimately, the government shelters legally behind the principle of informed consent which leaves the onus on the patient or their guardian, but needs to entail that it is genuinely informed (including all the risks and shortcomings of the product as is provided in the Montgomery ruling). It is further prejudicial if scorn and loathing are heaped on anyone who is not sure whether to comply (for instance the several derogatory comments made the Prime Minister about “anti-vaxxers”, or pronouncements by the WHO about the “vaccine hesitant” being a threat to global health) which is devoid of intellectual merit, quite outside the spirit of freedom of choice or the recommendations of the recent Cumberlege review, which considered instances where injured patients were subjected to bullying tactics. This fails to recognise the rights of the patient. It also undermines the rights of the patient if they are expected to be vaccinated to protect someone other than themselves. It is not only a dubious principle it may well be that it is in the interests of children, for example, to acquire natural immunity, particularly if the virulence of the disease retreats to the level of the common cold (which seems entirely likely).
Successive governments have also undermined their credibility by turning away applications for vaccine damage awards - in 2017 the Department of Works and Pensions was hauled over the coals in the Court of Appeal for using a “Catch 22” like strategy to deny claims over Pandemrix for narcolepsy in the swine flu episode. How does it propose to establish its fairness now? Another question is why after that experience they are so confident they will get it right this time? Or perhaps the principle of hit and run holds this time as well.
Expansion to the workforce of the eligible to administer vaccines
This is a reckless initiative. For instance, the business of the US vaccine court tends to be dominated by claims of shoulder injuries (no doubt because it is relatively easy to prove), and these are not trivial. To injure people in pursuit of the chimera of zero-COVID when 80% of people never have symptoms would be highly unethical.
Vaccine Promotion
Politicians, governments and mainstream media have a scandalous record of magical thinking over vaccines: it is always easy to ignore or gaslight those who have been harmed, and to blame the unvaccinated for the vaccinated catching the disease. If the government makes claims about the safety and effectiveness of products which are not true or have not been established it will be hugely culpable. Propaganda should not have a place in medicine and the government would do well to exercise discretion irrespective of whether products have been licensed or not. The fact is that any COVID-19 vaccine products which hit the market in the next decade, let alone the next few months, will not have been adequately tested.
I repeat my comment under ‘Civil liability and immunity’:
“Ultimately, the government shelters legally behind the principle of informed consent which leaves the onus on the patient or their guardian, but needs to entail that it is genuinely informed (including all the risks and shortcomings of the product as is provided in the Montgomery ruling). It is further prejudicial if scorn and loathing are heaped on anyone who is not sure whether to comply (for instance the several derogatory comments made the Prime Minister about “anti-vaxxers”, or pronouncements by the WHO about the “vaccine hesitant” being a threat to global health) which is devoid of intellectual merit, quite outside the spirit of freedom of choice or the recommendations of the recent Cumberlege review, which considered instances where injured patients were subjected to bullying tactics. This fails to recognise the rights of the patient. It also undermines the rights of the patient if they are expected to be vaccinated to protect someone other than themselves. It is not only a dubious principle it may well be that it is in the interests of children, for example, to acquire natural immunity, particularly if the virulence of the disease retreats to the level of the common cold (which seems entirely likely).”
If the government want to maintain a lower standard of ethics than informing the public of the risks and shortcomings of the products when promoting them in the media this does not reflect well on its intentions. Even asking the question does not reflect well.
Further, if the government wants to suppress criticism of vaccine products in either the mainstream media or social media on a generic basis this does not speak well of its good faith. Of course, it goes without saying that no one should make false claims either in favour or against products, but if you legislate against people criticising them then you most certainly have something to hide.
What we could do better
I am satisfied with the space allocated to comment, but I am dissatisfied with what I have been asked to comment upon and the overall context of a government acting outside normal constraints (and even perhaps outside its extended remit through the Coronavirus Act). It remains to be seen whether the government is capable of listening at this late stage to any well-founded criticism, or whether it will just bludgeon on regardless.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION.
The urgency with which this United Kingdom response is being planned is unnecessary and falsely contrived as a result of an initial flawed model issued by Imperial College’s Ian Ferguson which has been shown to have no validity and dismissed by scientists world over as inaccurate.
• The pandemic is over. There is no available science to verify that a second wave will happen; International science has shown that, as was illustrated by both SARS and MERS - each in themselves a novel corona virus - there will be no second wave.
• There is no need for an urgent vaccine. The covid virus is very closely related to at least four other viruses that circulate freely in the population, which are all corona viruses and contribute to the common cold, which means that only a small percentage of the population was susceptible to the new corona virus. At least 30 - 50% of people have T-Cell immunity from having been exposed to these other common cold-inducing corona viruses. These same people started with a level of immunity which means they are not susceptible to the virus at all which is now well accepted by clinical immunologists and virologists.
• The increase in cases comes as a result of the government’s testing regime, which in itself is also flawed. The PCR technique is a molecular biology technique which involves a great amount of amplification which is known to produce a risk of false positives. It comes up positive even though the virus is not present. What is being shown by the test data are virus particles resident in the body as a result of previous infections. Without the false data being produced by the tests you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over.
• In the outline of the document, it is acknowledged that the proposed vaccine is a biotechnological treatment, not a vaccine. This will constitute a gross infringement of various Articles of the Human Rights Act and a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
• Without adequate safety trials the vaccine cannot be given. Any decision to distribute unlicensed vaccines demonstrates a reckless disregard for population safety. We well remember the damage caused by Pandemrix, administered in the Swine Flu outbreak; the tragedy caused for the families whose loved ones suffered lifelong consequences as a result of a vaccine given in haste which too had inadequate safety standards.
• The Corvelva Institute have published an analysis of the science iro the coming Covid vaccination.
"At present, these questions have no answers, but contradictory assumptions. With respect to the possible therapies and means of prevention, it is noted that the international archive of scientific and clinical research Pubmed, given the search term “Coronavirus”, identifies 20,772 publications, with the first one dating back to 1949 2. Today, in 2020, after 70 years, the final balance of this impressive mass of work can be summed up in one word: failure. Failure for scientific research,and failure for clinical practice".
• Expansion to the workforce of those eligible to administer vaccines is one of the proposals in the Consultation document. With minimal training, the armed forces could be drafted in to administer the vaccine, notwithstanding that anaphylactic shock is known to occur in some patients.
• Another proposal is that both flu and covid vaccines may be given at the same time. It has been clearly stated by immunologists,virologists and doctors in the BMJ, that one of the great dangers in developing a Covid-19 vaccine could be to trigger lethal immune reactions when previously vaccinated people come into contact with the live virus. These proposed initiatives shows callous disregard for human life where risks of Covid-19 vaccines may likely significantly outweigh benefits.
• Baroness Cumberlege’s Review “First Do No Harm” found that ‘The healthcare system – the NHS, private providers, the regulators and professional bodies, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and policymakers – is disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive. It does not adequately recognise that patients are its raison d’etre’.
• Consumer Protection Regulations, Informed Consent and the Montgomery Ruling have all been introduced for the specific reason of protecting the public from rash action. Any attempt to remove these protections will be seen as a reckless initiative by the citizens of the United Kingdom. The public is aware that we are being lied to and falsely manipulated by people and companies who care more for their profits than for patients.
• The government is there to protect the public. It is therefore grossly irresponsible to propose that vaccine manufacturers should receive immunity from liability for their products. One of the appointed vaccine companies, Moderna, uses an innovation which has never before been used, much less found to be safe. It will alter the DNA of not just the patient accepting the vaccine, but possibly also inflict the DNA of future generations. The Government’s proposed changes to remove manufacturer’s legal obligation to make these vaccines safe is utterly ludicrous and must be immediately discarded.
• Fear, Hype and Hysteria have been generated in the past six months by both governments and the media. Propaganda should not have a place in medicine nor in the government. The widespread advertising or promotion of a covid vaccine will destroy any remaining vestige of trust or credibility in the institution of government. It will be seen as an ill advised ploy on behalf of those who stand to profit at the expense of the populace.
In the light of all of the above it is obvious that there is no need for the proposed urgent amendment to the Human Medicine Regulations Act at this time.
The conditions for which Article 174 were instated are not prevalent at this time and any implication that such conditions are present or imminent are a gross misrepresentation of the established facts..
This Consultation, like most government consultations, are not given anywhere near sufficient public exposure, as well as giving insufficient time for thorough public analysis and discussion. Covid has been discussed on every news outlet, in every newspaper throughout the country. Why was such an important Consultation not given equal prominence? It appears to be a very duplicitous and covert attempt to once again make changes to regulations without full public scrutiny.
Posted by: Karyse Day | September 30, 2020 at 12:28 PM
Another day another brave lady Dr. Li-Meng Yan-but the MMS dont see,hear or speak of her..
A Deer with rabbits ears...
Chinese Virologist;This virus came from a lab..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFlqXPl_hZQ
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | September 18, 2020 at 04:02 PM
Let's look at the facts, the government refuse to release any scientific data they say guides policy, I doubt there is ANY credible science to back up that claim, the government and media refuse to allow open debate on the covid (corona) issue, despite being challenged to do so by professor Dolores Cahill,. The government are censoring relevant comments and videos from eminent scientists, epidemiologists, and virologists, not forgetting the observational studies of various doctors treating successfully covid (corona) patients.
WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE!
Posted by: Richard McAdam | September 16, 2020 at 09:59 AM
We have just posted a monograph that addresses some of these potential COVID-19 vaccine safety issues (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/63710).
Posted by: Ronald N. Kostoff | September 15, 2020 at 01:06 PM
Will: I second John's comment. If you want to understand how utterly broken medical research is, and how perfectly useless the most lucrative drugs are, read Dr. Malcolm Kendrick's "Doctoring Data." Most medical research and publishing have become as trustworthy as government pronouncements. Doctors, mostly, are good, but medicine is horribly broken.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | September 14, 2020 at 08:13 PM
I sent my tuppence worth the other day.Great article John .The warp speed vaccines should have warp speed liability for manufacturers, warp speed medical care when your injury appears,warp speed injury boards ,warp speed injury compensation payouts,...No COVID here for sure.
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | September 14, 2020 at 06:21 PM
Will
Unfortunately, you share the politicians faith in the magical properties of drugs, but I am afraid that unless medicines are tightly controlled bad people will always take advantage - most medical literature is fraud anyway and the main effective drugs are still the ones that are comparatively ancient which are of no commercial use to drug companies. The politicians think that that if you deregulate wonderful things will happen - they think that is being creative - and they will be for the super rich screwing the rest of us. If you make room for people to cheat the people who cheat will alway be ahead of those who want to do an honest job more carefully and slowly.
Posted by: John Stone | September 14, 2020 at 05:06 PM
Great response to the survey, John.
I did complete it today. Nowhere near as comprehensive as your response, but I did leave them in no doubt as to what I thought of all 5 questions, (politely!).
Posted by: susan welch | September 14, 2020 at 04:51 PM
I think the opposite of some on this site. The regulatory bureaucracy such as the FDA and the EDA is killing us through how long it takes any medicine to get approved. I think a 2 tier system of clinical trials should be enough to get a medical product approved not a 3 tier system of clinical trials. Let alone a supposed SARS COVID 19 vaccine and the bureaucratic nightmare said vaccines are facing worldwide.
Posted by: Will | September 14, 2020 at 03:42 PM
Brilliant article as usual John. I just filled out the submission form on the Alliance for Natural Health survey at the link you gave. It was very easy and I just cut and pasted the abbreviated reasons under each heading. I hope other people can do the same. It took about 3 minutes. They ask where did you hear about the submission and give you lots of specific choices. I said other. They asked for name of website and I just said Newsletter from parents of vaccine injured children. I did not want to name the website specifically because I know they will try to censor us and other social media platforms that are on to them.
Posted by: Jane | September 14, 2020 at 08:50 AM
CHANNEL 4 NEWS EXPOSES SWINE FLU SCANDAL [2010 – DEJA VU]
video – 3 mins 31 secs
Channel 4's John Snow reports on the Council of Europe's investigation into the manufactured swine flu hoax. The former Chair of the Sub-committee on Health of the Parliamentary Assembly Dr Wolfgang Wodarg had accused the World Health Organization (WHO) of lowering the definition of a pandemic in order for the pharmaceutical companies and their share holders to rake in massive at the expense of tax payers in targeted countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1IZVT_LCE
Posted by: Coram Deo | September 14, 2020 at 08:42 AM
I forgot to comment when filling in their form about their statement COVID being the worst peacetime crisis in country’s history. About the disease they would have to be joking, about government and global wickedness there is no doubt.
Posted by: John Stone | September 14, 2020 at 08:38 AM
AsrtraCyanide and BJ can both go and Fook themselves.
I believe there has been 3 injuries in the tests so far, (obviously it would never make any difference to me either way - I will be refusing no matter what dirty coercive tricks they try).
Dr Elisa Granata has completely disappeared without trace.
We had a report of a participant with MS in June or July.
And now we have this latest unamed female maimed with Transverse Myelitis.
Vaccination the crime of all centuries
Posted by: Hans Litten | September 14, 2020 at 07:51 AM
I also note the excellent response from Alliance for Natural Health
https://www.anhinternational.org/news/uk-law-changes-for-covid-19-mass-vaccination/
Posted by: John Stone | September 14, 2020 at 07:33 AM