According to the Government is proceeding as follows:
1. They are considering allowing COVID-19 vaccines to be used before they are licensed.
2. They plan to make them liability-free for the drug companies and the medical professionals who vaccinate.
3. They are considering giving COVID-19 vaccines at the same time as the latest flu vaccines even though the trials don’t cover both.
4. The flu vaccines are known to challenge the immune system potentially leaving people vulnerable to upper respiratory infections but they don’t appear to be considering this.
5. They don’t appear to be making any provision for people who suffer harm or die as a result of these vaccinations.
6. They don’t appear to be considering that everyone has the right to make Informed Consent which means the person giving the vaccination has to provide all available evidence about the risks and alternatives to the procedure.
Item 1
Until now I believe no vaccine has been given to the general population without full licensing having been obtained. The reason for this is to minimize risks of vaccine damage as well as ensuring the efficacy of the vaccine. I understand it is usual for the testing and trials to take over a year. Current trials involve too few participants to provide any reliable risk assessment. With an infection risk of 1 in a few thousand, in order to achieve a reasonable sample of vaccinated & infected individuals to assess relative risk by age group/ethnicity/ health status/etc
I would estimate that over two million participants would be required. Long-term health risks by definition can only be determined over a reasonably long period of at least a year or more. It would seem that safety is to take second place to the implementation of the vaccination programme.
Item 2
This is exactly what the USA has done with all vaccines, relieving the manufacturers of any liability for the safety of their products. This would be unheard of in any other field of industry, can we imagine a motor manufacturer not being held responsible for the safety of their cars? However, such a relief from liability of a car might only result in minor breakdowns and few deaths or serious injury before the public ceased buying their product. The potential harm from an inadequately tested vaccine is infinitely more serious and would not be obvious to the public but hidden in medical records and often difficult to prove in a court of law. This is the situation in the USA, but despite the cost and complexity of fighting for compensation against the well-funded government lawyers, many have succeded in making claims. Unfortunately, the majority have not dared risk the financial damage of going down that road.
Item 3
There is clinical evidence to support this claim that the annual flu jab may increase the adverse impact of COVID-19. See my post on this topic.
Item 4
This is an extension of my comment in item 3.
Item 5
This will be fought out in the courts, but most of those who have suffered will not risk financial damage taking on the government.
Item 6
There is a history of poor provision of the full pros and cons of vaccines that would have allowed reasonable informed consent, in particular for the vaccination of children. The reason given often is that any fears about vaccine safety would jeopardize the mass vaccination programme, with the failure of “herd immunity” and leaving vulnerable people to be damaged by the virus. This despite the fact that those most at risk of with chronic health problems are usually deemed not fit enough to be given the vaccine. I fear any promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine will only give the potential positive benefits and any potential adverse health hazards will be either unsaid or left to the small print.
We are asked at the end of the consultation document “What could the government do to improve this”
Spend 20% of the NHS budget teaching health promotion to doctors in medical schools, parents, and children at school. By this, I don’t mean the orthodox medical health promotion of vaccines, screening, medication, etc. I mean the few basics that underpin good health; all those therapies classed as CAM including nutrition, structural work & exercise, breath training, stress management, etc. This would mean a paradigm shift in healthcare thinking and provision in the west. The Kings Fund were given this task over ten years ago, “How to change the NHS from a sickness service to a health promotion service” they failed to convince the government then, nothing much has changed since except for the more critical need to do something now if the NHS is to be sustainable.
I don’t believe much notice will be taken of respondents as statisticians and scientists seem to be governing our country at the moment, but nevertheless it will be worth you adding your comments; click HERE to take you straight to the document online.