A Fuller Picture of Vaccination - Final

Below in black text are the comments and views of two retired medics on vaccines, which I
have taken the trouble to counter in green text, as I am burdened by the public’s lack of
knowledge about the issues around vaccine harm and vaccine generation by big pharma.
Yellow highlight on green text are key parts of this document that are I have emphasised as
they are key ‘take home’ messages.
I have done my maximum to back everything up with scientific evidence (references are all
listed below) and I would humbly ask you to consider what I have written and weigh up
things so that you are empowered with information that will keep you and your loved ones as
safe as possible.
VACCINATION FACTS
WHAT IS A VACCINE?
All vaccines work by training the immune system to recognize the disease-causing part of a
virus. The response in the body is to produce antibodies that inactivate the virus antigen and
also to stimulate the production of T cells that then mop up the infected cells.
Vaccines traditionally contained either weakened (live) viruses or purified (denatured)
signature proteins of the virus. Nowadays there are other options which make the process
much quicker.
What are the differences between the 3 Vaccines?

Not all the vaccines currently being researched are the same in nature. However, all 3
vaccines use only a segment of a virus to produce antibodies and none use live virus material.
There is therefore no danger that the virus can replicate and cause disease.
1
A Fuller Picture of Vaccination 02/12/2020
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
But there is danger that the mammalian cell lines used to make the genetically modified virus
( from Oxford -Uni Astrazeneca) have viral contamination. Such viral contamination may
only manifest itself post vaccination where the vaccinated recipient develops symptoms
caused by the virus contaminant – see paper by Barone et al 2020 (1).
The question then needs to be asked of the Oxford -Uni Astrazeneca vaccine, has it been
tested for viral contamination and did it come up negative? If so, can it be indemnified against
future adverse effects due to any pathogenic virus contamination present? Barone et al 2020
explain that finding virus contamination is not easy and often scientists have to use indirect
methods such as PCR to find the contamination. They describe the safety implications as
follows:
“Four (herpesvirus, human adenovirus type 1, parainfluenza virus type 3 and reovirus type 3)
of the five viruses found to contaminate human and primate cell lines are known to be
pathogenic in humans, whereas only one (Cache Valley virus) of the to cause disease in
humans37,38. These data highlight that the viral contamination of protein products produced
in human or primate cell lines pose a higher safety risk to patients and the manufacturing
process due to human cell line susceptibility to infection by viruses that are pathogenic in
humans.”
So far, we know of at least three volunteers who have had adverse effects which have been
disregarded by Astrazeneca:
1. One volunteer in Brazil has died (2) (3) but is said to be in the control group
2. One woman in the UK has had an adverse reaction with symptoms similar to
transverse myelitis. (4)
3. One volunteer is India is suing Astrazeneca for serious adverse effects which have had
neurological and psychological symptoms (13)
The Oxford-Astrazenica vaccine (UK)works like a traditional inoculation where a spike

protein (segment) of the virus is injected and to which the immune system builds up a
response if the real virus later enters the body.
The Pfizer-BioNTech (USA/Germany) and Moderna (USA) vaccines both use a newer and
faster technology. Both are mRNA vaccines. This means that instead of having the viral
protein injected, a person receives genetic material – mRNA – that encodes the viral protein.
These genetic instructions are then translated by the muscle cells in the arm (at the
vaccination site) to make the viral protein directly in the body. However, it is not the whole
code that is injected but only the mRNA codes for the critical fragment of the viral protein.
This means that a person’s immune system gets a preview of what the real virus looks like but
without any possibility of causing disease. The end result is that the immune system is then
able to design powerful antibodies that can neutralize the real virus if the individual is ever
infected.
mRNA vaccines have never been used before, so the public are effectively being guinea pigs
in a huge experiment.
There is not enough data (only 2 month’s worth) on the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine to
say it is safe for all age groups, health statuses, ethnicities or those with diverse underlying
conditions.(6)
2
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
The following two quotes by Rob Verkerk (12) about the Pfizer vaccine confirm that not
enough time has elapsed to be certain about adverse autoimmune conditions as such
conditions are not picked up until years after a product is first marketed. Also a previous
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was dropped due to the adverse effects caused, so how do we know
what the true risk of harms is after so little time that has elapsed since the product was
generated, tested and then released?
“Nothing can be said about the risk of harms from vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2
such as triggering autoimmune conditions as the trials need to run their course and most of
these kinds of problems are generally not picked up until years after the product is first
marketed. And that’s assuming a normal 6-year development program. Two months of post-
vaccination adverse event reporting just doesn’t cut it if you want a proper handle on safety.
If this vaccine fails to be effective a few months after its second doses has been administered,
is there going to be a justification made for its mass roll-out, given the huge economic cost to
society, the risk of harms, and the fact that healthy people seem to tolerate SARS-CoV-2 more
than adequately? Remember, it was the alternate BioNTech vaccine, BNT162b1, that was
found to enhance the T-cell response more, but had an unacceptable safety profile so was
dropped.”(6)
I have discovered that the scientific literature does talk about mRNAs integrating into the
genome – see the following quotes from various papers:
1. Xu et al (2020): state that there is a possibility that mRNAs can integrate into the
genome - they just don't know exactly how high or low yet – see below statement from
their paper: “In addition, due to the chemical constitution of the mRNA sequence,
which is different from DNA constitution and lack of CpG islands, there is a lower
possibility for mRNA to integrate into host DNA genome and induce a smaller immune
rejection reaction [25]. The market value for the mRNA vaccine field has also
increased, reaching up to tens of billions of dollars...” (7)
2. Fonseca et al (2016) have published the following paper describing RNA virus
integration into the soybean genome, so RNA can integrate and change the genome of
a species. We just don’t have any information on what mRNA vaccines can do in
humans yet in terms of integrating into our genomes. It is a complete unknown as no
one is looking into it at present, as far as I can tell. Unusual RNA plant virus
integration in the soybean genome leads to the production of small RNAs (8)
3. Nguyen et al (2018) have published a paper entitled: ViFi: accurate detection of viral
integration and mRNA fusion reveals indiscriminate and unregulated transcription in
proximal genomic regions in cervical cancer, in which they state: “A 2013 study of
RNA-seq datasets from the TCGA database by Tang et al. explored the landscape of
human-viral fusion gene expression. The authors observed that fusion mRNA
transcripts are often found in HPVrelated and HBV-related cancers.”They further
state that: “Although viral integration is seemingly random, a chance integration into
a key genomic locus could provide a selective advantage for host cells if the virus
integrates near a key growth controlling gene, effectively driving constitutive
expression of a proliferative transcriptional program.” And “Thus, the impact of
seemingly random viral integration on the development of viral-associated cancers is
not well understood.” (9)
3
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
4. Cossetti et al (2014) have published a paper showing that external (or exogenous)
DNA or RNA molecules can be taken up by somatic cells (non-heritable e.g. muscle
cells are non-heritable) and can be transferred sexually via non-Mendelian
mechanisms to germline cells (heritable cells) such as sperm (spermatozoa) and eggs
(oocytes). They state: “RNA-mediated transfer of information may occur between
somatic and germ cells, and that spermatozoa might be the final recipients of somatic
RNA populations.” …“Work from our and other laboratories indicates
that spermatozoa act as vectors not only of their own genome, but also of foreign
genetic information, based on their spontaneous ability to take up exogenous DNA
and RNA molecules that are then delivered to oocytes at fertilization with the ensuing
generation of phenotypically modified animals [35–37]. In cases in which this has
been thoroughly investigated, the sperm-delivered sequences have been seen to
remain extrachromosomal and to be sexually transmitted to the next generation in a
non-Mendelian fashion [38]. The modes of genetic information delivery in this
process are closely reminiscent of those operating in RNA-mediated paramutation
inheritance, whereby RNA is the determinant of inheritable epigenetic variations
[16,17].In conclusion, this work reveals that a flow of information can be transferred
from the soma to the germline, escaping the principle of the Weismann barrier [39]
which postulates that somatically acquired genetic variations cannot be transferred to
the germline.” (10) So extrachromosomal RNA can be transferred down to the next
generation.
The mRNA vaccines also use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) which are typically composed of an
ionizable lipid, cholesterol, PEGylated lipid, and a helper lipid such as
distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC).
Multiple previous studies regarding the prevalence of anti-PEG antibodies in the population
have stated that pre-screening for these antibodies should be done prior to administration of
any PEG containing medication due to the adverse effects on subjects e.g. severe
anaphylactic responses - Zhang et al (2016) (21). ‘Not everyone with pre-existing PEG
antibodies will have a severe reaction to a vaccine containing PEG, but there is a significant
danger that many will. Ideally, the safety and efficacy effects on those with pre-existing
antibodies to PEG would be determined in the clinical trials. However, as Moderna’s trial is
not pre-screening participants for anti-PEG antibodies they cannot, therefore, characterize the
risk. They are flying blind.’ - Harold R. Gielow, LtCol USMC (22).
All the vaccines also have the following problems highlighted by Dr Mike Yeadon who has
filed a petition to the EMA (23) to suspend all vaccines studies until various problems are
ironed out like:
1. Erroneous RT-PCR false positives have occurred because of severe errors in the
design of the primers used to amplify up the viral target gene as well as there being no
standard operating procedure across all countries for identifying positives, some labs
use a Ct of 45 cycles whereas some may use 25 cycles and others 35 cycles. Anything
detected as a positive at 45 cycles or more is more than likely to be a false positive.
They demand that sanger sequencing of positives is done to verify the presence of the
virus in positive cases in each trial.
4
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
2. The absence of an accurate test validation, i.e. no Sanger sequencing to confirm the
presence of the Sars-Cov-2 virus DNA is currently being done to unequivocally verify
that the target is truly present in Covid-19 positive cases.
3. The use of highly concentrated primers in the RT-PCR reaction which is widely
known to cause non-specific primer- dimers which would be detected as false
positives.
4. The RT-PCR primer sequences given to public health laboratories incorporate choice
as to the composition of the base sequence in six positions which leave the base
compositions unspecified, which is inviting non-specificity in the reaction, thereby
enabling the amplification of target sequences unrelated to Sars-Cov-2. These base
compositions should have been specified unequivocally. They also do not cover
opposite ends of the virus, ensuring that a complete virus is present in a patient.
Finally, at least three sets of primers should be standardly used to confirm false
positives, one of which should be for the virus replicase enzyme gene, which indicates
infectivity within the patient.
5. All of the above means that the very test that monitors whether a volunteer develops
Covid-19 symptoms during a vaccine clinical trial is not fit for purpose at present.
6. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated

immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild”
virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has
long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the
course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after
catching the wild virus.
7. The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-
CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which
are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be
absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune
reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result
in vaccinated women.
8. The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70%
of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can
develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
9. The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the
late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of
healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval
were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination
were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application
for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
5
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
METHOD OF WORKING
Even though not all vaccines currently being researched work in the same way the end result
is essentially the same.
The end result cannot be the same if an mRNA vaccine has never been used before and we
don’t know what the downstream impact of RNA integrating into the genome could be. We
do know that RNA can integrate into the genome via non-mendelian mechanisms from
Cossetti’s paper above. (10)
Does it kill the virus?
No, but that is not specifically the aim, which is rather to stop it replicating itself and so
allow the patients to get rid of the affected body cells themselves.
Does it prevent people becoming affected by the disease?

All 3 current candidates have demonstrated this significantly. No vaccine can be expected to
do this in every single case.
The Pfizer vaccine has been stated as being 90% effective. But what we don’t know is, on
what particular outcome parameters was the effectiveness determined? Was it, for example,
based on lack of COVID-19 disease symptoms combined with elevated antibody responses,
and if so which ones?(6)
Does it prevent people getting a severe form of the disease?

All 3 current candidates have demonstrated this significantly. This is perhaps the more
important effect as it will lower hospital admissions and pressure on NHS staff and beds as
well as on mortality rates.
Regarding the Pfizer vaccine, we still don’t know how serious the manifestation of COVID-
19 disease was in the equivalent vaccinated and placebo groups (i.e., similar ages, gender,
ethnicity and underlying disease pattern)?(6)
Does it prevent people passing on the disease?

To date this is not really known but should become clear in time. PCR testing may need to be
done to show whether people are infectious. Decreased spread of Covid-19 may occur due to
a decreasing number of cases in the community and/or because vaccinated people are not
(so) infectious.
EFFECTIVENESS
This is tested by the use of trials. i.e. the vaccine is given to a number of people and then the
numbers who do or don’t develop the disease are noted. On its own, this single statistic
would be almost useless but when a control group is also included in the trial i.e. half the
people get vaccine and half get a placebo (nothing or another vaccine like Encephalitis as in
part of the Oxford trial) a comparison is possible and therefore the level of effectiveness can
be calculated. Usually, a company will carry out a small initial trial and then progress to
bigger ones. In the final or 3rd phase of trials the numbers need to be really big as that
provides much more reliable evidence of the effect.
What level of effectiveness is required / acceptable?
6
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
Generally a vaccine needs to work in at least 50% of people to be of value. The Pfizer-
BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are both said to be >90% effective and the Astrazenica
vaccine >70% (90% with one regime).
90% effective is not clear as the clinical trial data is not available to the public.(6)
Does it work equally well in all groups of people? (children, elderly, BAME etc)
So far, the trials have shown that all 3 vaccines work in all age groups. Astrazenica have
specifically stated that their initial findings show that it works equally well in all age groups
(which is slightly unusual)
For the Pfizer vaccine we still don’t know the demography (age, gender, ethnicity, etc) of
those who were infected and how many of these represent the most vulnerable groups i.e., the
elderly or those with comorbidities. (6)
For the Astrazeneca vaccine, there have been multiple reports of adverse effects (see page 2
above).
EFFICIENCY & COST-EFFECTIVENESS

For how long does its effect last?
This will only be known in time. If it only remains effective for less than a year, this will
cause logistic problems for re-vaccination of large numbers of people.
We need to ask what is the point of taking a vaccine to be 'protected from the COVID-19
disease' if there is no evidence to support you not getting infected again? There have been
four cases of an individual having it twice in the literature. Not enough is known about how
effective an immune response is to Covid-19 the first time, or the second time, and for how
long the immune response lasts.
What we do know is that a significant proportion of people in the UK have not succumbed to
the virus symptoms and so are likely to have already developed immunity, i.e. if ~58,000 have
died, that represents 0.09% of the population, so that means 99.91% have:
1. either had it and fought it off, or
2. have had it and had symptoms and now have immunity so far, or
3. are yet to have it but have survived for 8 months without getting it yet for whatever reason.
Can it easily be distributed / administered anywhere around the world?

Pfizer-BioNTech & Moderna are more expensive to produce and require very low
temperatures for storage in comparison with the Oxford-Astrazenica, which means that the
latter will be far better for use in less developed/rich countries, especially those what have
hot climates.
How much does it cost?

Pfizer-BioNTech & Moderna cost approx. £10 per person whereas Oxford-Astrazenica costs
only £2-3 per person.
7
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
How many doses need to be given? And how often?
Pfizer-BioNTech & Moderna vaccines need 2 doses separated by 3 weeks. Oxford-
Astrazenica vaccine needs 2 doses separated by 4 weeks. Interestingly, due to a ‘mistake’
early in the trials, a half-dose of this vaccine was used in the first dose and the results for this
regime are significantly better than 2 lots of the ‘full’ dose. The reason for this is not known
but it may be that this way of administering the vaccine is better able to stimulate the immune
response.
The effect for all seems to apparent within 1-2 weeks of the second dose, although this may
actually be earlier
If and when long-term boosters will be needed will only be revealed in time.
How does it need to be stored?
The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines need to be stored at -70-100 degrees (which
necessitates special refrigeration) whereas the Oxford-Astrazenica vaccine can be kept at –8
degrees (which means it can be kept in standard refrigerators). see above.
SAFETY
Overall, vaccines (in contrast to some medicines) are very safe and generate very few
significant side-effects.
On safety of vaccines, I have put at the bottom of this document my contribution to the
government consultation on: Distributing vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 and flu:
(https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-
covid-19-and-flu?
fbclid=IwAR26r7rzusvse3uFE1r2qO_pMm_GwRkxO45My09hEdb5b4snkW1_3z3hc50)
It will give the reader a considerable amount of information on adverse effects which most of
the public are totally unaware of. Please read it and mull over what it says for your safety.
There are very strict checks and regulations both by the scientists/pharmaceutical companies
and independents that must all be carried out before a vaccine is registered to be administered.
All 3 western vaccines (as named above) are still awaiting final agreement and registration.
However, 2 Russian vaccines Sputnik V or Gam-COVID-Vac and EpiVacCorona) have
apparently been registered without going through final checks. I understand that the UK has
NOT ordered any of these.
Does it have any serious / significant side effects?
Serious side effects have not been demonstrated with any of the 3 vaccines.
Minor side effects include a sore arm (at the vaccination site), low-grade fever and a flu-like
feeling, all of which are short-lived. These symptoms are not signs of the disease but indicate
the working of the vaccine to produce immunity.
This is untrue. Serious side effects have been seen with the Astrazeneca vaccine (see page 2
above).
We do not have a true full picture of the likely side effects of the mRNA or viral vector
vaccines yet, but we do know that mRNA can integrate via non-Mendelian mechanisms into
genomes, and we know that mRNA can be transmitted from somatic tissue to germline cells
like sperm and eggs.(10)
8
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
We do also know that the MHRA is expecting a large number of adverse effects as they have
asked for companies to tender for AI software to manage the massive amounts of data they
will need to process in order to log the number of adverse effects expected – see below
statement from their tendering website: (14)
“Short description: The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to
process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and
ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.”
Is it contra-indicated in certain groups of people?

There are very few people for whom the Covid-19 vaccine would truly be contra-indicated.
This is because it is not a live vaccine and so CANNOT produce the disease itself. Even those
on immuno-suppressants (e.g. transplant patients) can receive it.
As I understand it, none of the 3 vaccines currently being considered use egg protein in its
manufacture, so this reduces the risk of allergy.
Medicines for use in anyone who simply cannot be vaccinated are also under development.
It may not be a live virus vaccine but the mRNA vaccines have never been used before, so we
are dealing with a complete unknown as to the contra-indications. Regarding the contra-
indications for the Astrazeneca and the Gamaleya vaccines, what is unknown is the level of
viral contamination in the mammalian cell lines used to generate the vaccines, and what is
unknown also is the level of inflammation caused due to adjuvants like aluminium and any
other nanoparticles in the vaccines. Is it chronic inflammation which will only materialise
with side effects like narcolepsy, transverse myelitis or multiple sclerosis years afterwards or
not? We just don’t know after only a few months of testing.
How can we be sure that all the rigorous tests have been carried out, seeing as the
production is so quick (compared with the usual development of a vaccine)?
One reason for speed in the production of a Covid-19 vaccine is the use of the new mRNA
technology. Another is NOT that some important steps have been omitted but that some steps
have been taken in parallel rather than in series. (e.g. manufacture has already started even
before trial results known and registration given).
The issue here is not completion of important steps but post-vaccination monitoring of
vaccinated subjects. If you don’t allow enough time to identify chronic autoimmune adverse
effects like narcolepsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis and multiple sclerosis,
and flaccid paralysis, how do you know that any of the above four vaccines will not cause
these adverse, permanent effects?
Any vaccine developed in the UK and probably in any ‘Western country’ can certainly be
trusted as no important checks will have been omitted.
Even if important checks have been completed, the public have the right to know exactly what
clinical data is published before any consent is given, as all liability for adverse effects has
been removed by the government. Important checks do not compensate for a clinical trial
9
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
which has not given enough time to decipher what adverse effects occur in a year or two
years’ time.
We can also trust that the UK will not purchase and distribute any vaccine which does not
reach these same high standards. (see above re Russian vaccines)
The government’s record of admission of fault is poor at present. 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.(16)
If vaccines are totally safe, why has the government removed liability for adverse effects in
courts from the pharmaceutical manufacturers of all three vaccines? If their aim is to protect
the public, isn't this the opposite of what should be happening? Isn't it our right to sue for
medical harm due to adverse effects caused by taking a nationally endorsed vaccine?
Why also does the WHO “Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines” page (5), say
the following “WHO also disclaims any and all liability or responsibility whatsoever for any
death, disability, injury, suffering, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may arise
from or in connection with the procurement, distribution or use of any product included in any
of these landscape documents”.
Could side-effects emerge later?

With a vaccine, if side-effects are going to be generated, they usually appear early on in
trials. This differs from some medicines partly because only 1 or 2 doses need to be given
and the effects (good or bad) are expected quite quickly. Also, there is unlikely to be any
cumulative effect as with some medicines that need to be taken continuously for quite a long
time.
This is not what all the literature says. Post vaccination injuries can occur years afterwards.
This is why scientists are stating that sufficient time, i.e. years need to pass, before a true
picture of the adverse effects of a vaccine are truly known. See statement above by Rob
Verkerk who says that “adverse autoimmune conditions as such conditions are not picked up
until years after a product is first marketed.” (6) Also, when polio vaccines have been given to
African children, apart from vaccine-derived polio cases, many African countries have been
reporting between 2018-2019 over 31,000 cases of acute flaccid paralysis. (15)
The issue of whether aluminium could cause some long-term effects (like dementia) in the
brain has been raised. It’s not clear whether this is yet another conspiracy theory or a
serious concern. However, various forms of aluminium have been used as adjuvants (i.e. they
improve its effectiveness) in vaccines for 70 years with no clear evidence of side effects due to
high levels of aluminium.
If all the vaccines have been generated using cell lines or containing adjuvants like
aluminium, there is genuine danger of infecting individuals with viral particles or
contaminating them with toxic metals which are linked with chronic downstream disease.
Regarding aluminium:
a. Gatti and Montanari (2017) (11) verified the presence of saline and aluminum salts,
but also the further presence of micro-, submicro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies
10
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
(e.g. aluminum, silicon, magnesium and titanium iron, chromium, calcium particles) (ranging
from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in 44 types of vaccines, whose presence was
not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product.
b. These nanoparticles show nano-bio-interactions, are foreign bodies, and being
particularly small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those
particles cannot be degraded.
c. The proteincorona effect due to a nano-bio-interaction can produce organic/inorganic
composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way. The
particles are the size often observed in vaccines and can enter cell nuclei and interact with the
DNA.
d. Given the contaminations they observed in all samples of human-use vaccines,
adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the
character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the
blood circulation.
e. Similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very
small organisms like those of children.
There has been no actual research by the pharmaceuticals on the effects of aluminium on the
brain as a result of post vaccination adverse effects, so it is impossible to state that aluminium
in vaccines is safe. All we know is that the size of these aluminium or other adjuvant particles
are able to travel in the blood and are capable of stimulating the immune system in an
undesirable way, i.e. inflammation, and as they cannot be degraded by the body, they will
cause chronic effects. We just don’t know what effects and how widely they negatively
impact our bodies at present.
MY ADVICE
 Have the vaccine as soon as you have the opportunity. If you think it is being rolled out
and you have not been called, it might be worth while to check with your GP. It will also
be important to ensure that both members of a couple get the vaccine at the same time
even if only one is older and/or more vulnerable. Again, check with your GP if there is
any doubt about this.
People need to not be pressured into taking a vaccine that they do not know enough about in
terms of the downstream repercussions.
 Remember that vaccination will not just protect you but also everyone else. We are not
safe until everyone is safe.
Vaccines can do a lot of good if they are generated in a safe way which has been checked for
viral contaminants, checked for the impact of nanoparticles on the brain, checked for
integration into the genome and checked for potential autoimmune conditions which may
arise.
Any truly assessed drug or vaccine will have in its product insert a comprehensive list of
contra-indications, of very common, common, rare, and very rare adverse effects, which will
have been gleaned over a considerable number of years not months.
11
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
A zero risk society is one where people live in fear of the next pathogen that may come along
and are continually vaccinated against every bug going, rather than living an independent, un-
monitored life with full freedom to work, live and mix with society in a healthy but sensitive
and conscientious way.
If certain people only feel safe having been vaccinated, that is their personal choice based on
their own informed consent at the time, but insisting that everyone on the planet gets
vaccinated is a fearful, desperate and fascist way of life which removes individual freedom
which has been fought for by all the generations before us, who have worked so hard to
protect a human being’s right to consent and right to live without manic interference from the
state, or parts of society that want to impose their own views on all humanity.
Why are businesses being encouraged by the current vaccine minister to penalise the public
who choose to exercise their right to consent or not consent, to medical treatment (vaccines or
testing) which has no liability for adverse effects and no concrete assurances of future safety?
What is the point of a law that says that we have a right to consent or not consent to medical
treatment, if you put in draconian laws which enable society and businesses to penalise those
who exercise their right to choose their own treatment regime? Why is the government not
advocating natural plant based medicines of building and retaining immunity which would
help all members of the public without side effects?
What gives society a right to impose medical treatment onto the body of another human
being? How different is this from the Nazi regime that forced thousands of Jews into
concentration camps and then gassed them to their deaths?
Right now as I write a request has been made to the government by Dr Lisa Forsberg, Dr Isra
Black, Dr Thomas Douglas, and Dr Jonathan Pugh to remove the right to consent for medical
treatment and mandate vaccines in a pandemic situation. (24) These authors argue that if the
government thinks it’s okay to lockdown a population, they should consider it okay to
mandate approved vaccines for their population. This is removing the freedom of choice as to
whether an individual receives treatment for a disease or not, and removes their sovereign
right to control what happens to their own body by an external force. It leaves the population
bereft of the ability to decide for themselves what treatment they prefer – one dictated by
pharmaceuticals and governments or one decided upon with consent by themselves. We are in
a dangerous situation in this country of losing the freedoms so hard fought for, by our parents
and grandparents, and what this country is so proud to be able to have which many other
people on this planet do not. Never before has it been as crucial, to understand how precious
our freedom to choose what we are exposed to, is.
 If you have been vaccinated but younger members of your family have not, then you will
need to continue to wear a mask / keep social distancing (or not meet inside) until all have
been vaccinated.
 Do not read social media on anti-vacc issues. If you want information, google official
sites like NHS & Gov.UK and the Pharmaceutical companies themselves.
12
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
Biased websites portraying only adverse effects are not helpful, but being aware of scientific
data which documents post-vaccination adverse effects is not being negative about vaccines
but being deeply aware of all data, not just so-called positive information. Medical consent
needs to be given, based on as complete a picture as possible, of potential risks and benefits of
any medical drug / vaccine purporting to alleviate disease or remove susceptibility to
pathogenic disease.
 There is no scientific proof that vaccines like MMR etc have caused issues like autism,
which is the issue that started the anti-vacc ‘campaign’ some years ago. People who
believed that lie now wonder about the Covid vaccine, but as I have explained there is no
cause for concern. Vaccines are arguably safer than medicines as only given in 1-2 doses
and not long term.
Vaccines have been scientifically documented to cause chronic conditions like narcolepsy,
Guillain-Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome, explosive dermatitis. Regarding autism, the concentration of
aluminium in vaccines has been linked to developing the disorder (17), and studies in animals
show that aluminium-containing vaccines contribute to neuropathological changes that
include neurodegeneration of the grey matter of the spinal cord (18) and hindlimb paralysis.
(19)
 Just because some Pharmaceutical companies have behaved badly in the past does not
mean this is true now. Mostly the issues were around finance and admin/management
rather than the medical science which has very strict controls.
This is not true because big pharma are being sued by vaccinated subjects for adverse effects:
1. The national law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman filed a Gardasil lawsuit
against Merck on behalf of a 19-year-old woman, alleging the company misled the
FDA, legislators, doctors and moms about the safety and efficacy of its Gardasil
vaccine. (20).
2. One volunteer is India is suing Astrazeneca for serious adverse effects which have had
neurological and psychological symptoms (13)
3. In 2017 the Department of Works and Pensions was criticised in the Court of Appeal
for using a “Catch 22” like strategy to deny claims over Pandemrix for narcolepsy in
the swine flu episode.
 Both XXXX and I are agreed that if we have a choice (which we probably won’t have) we
would prefer the Oxford Vaccine. We trust ‘our own’. To me, the fact that they admitted
the mistake over the trial dosage proves their transparency and is not an indication of
deception etc. Also, the company have said they want it to be distributed world-wide and
without making a profit, which is more than the American companies have said as far as I
am aware. (I suspect that an element of protectionism may be at work there). Again, the
Oxford Vaccine is cheaper and easier to store/distribute which may well mean it is likely
to be more widely available, so we may be lucky and get offered that.
The Oxford Astrazeneca Vaccine is the one above which has had multiple volunteers come
out with adverse effects. It is also a vaccine which has been generated in a mammalian cell
13
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
line, MRC-5, known to have had parainfluenza type viral contamination (1). How are the
public going to be reassured that this vaccine which has caused serious “neurological and
psychological” symptoms in one volunteer, will be safe for them?
 There are very few people for whom the vaccine is contra-indicated. If you are worried
because you have a co-morbidity (other medical problem/s) and/or are on long-term
medication and so are not sure whether it is safe for you to have the vaccine, then please
discuss the matter with your GP.
Someone already with a co-morbidity like diabetes that causes them to be immune-
compromised hardly needs another variable of taking a vaccine which:
1. if it is the RNA one, could potentially integrate into their genome via non-Mendelian
mechanisms causing unknown downstream effects, or
2. if taking a viral vector vaccine, could develop a disease (parainfluenza) caused by a
pathogenic virus which happens to have contaminated the mammalian cell line it was
propagated in.
3. if taking either, inadequate checks are in place for nanoparticle contamination or non-
degradable metals like aluminium which could cause permanent downstream chronic
disease e.g. multiple sclerosis.
What is really needed is a robust, contaminant - considered, safe, time-rich process over years
not months, of generating a drug / vaccine for the public, where all clinical trial data is open
to public scrutiny prior to medical consent, and only release of the vaccine / drug as a fully
licensed product with the public’s need for liability of the manufacturer against adverse
effects to be preserved in law.
We also need to think seriously about how many vaccines we feel we need to keep taking in
the future to create a zero risk society? The moment we step outside our door we are taking
risks. What kind of society do we want? One which stops you from leading a free and
peaceful life, or one which monitors your every move, mandates vaccines, masks, immunity
passports, medical treatments and limits freedom to protect ourselves from unwanted
treatments, limits our rights to protest against injustice and limits our ability to thrive because
we can no longer move or see family and friends?
Let’s understand the nature of pathogens, how to build our immunity naturally, how to be
sensible about protecting those who are vulnerable to infections without limiting their quality
of life entirely. We need compassion and common sense mixed with courage to live our lives
not immersed in fear of contracting infections against which we can sensibly take protective
measures to keep infections mainly at bay.
But these measures should not be at the expense of:
1. nationally consenting to vaccines which have not been tested over years, or
2. creating a society where vaccines and medical treatments are mandated, thereby
removing an individual’s sovereign right to consent or not to consent to medical
treatment over their own body, or
3. limiting freedoms which end up causing more overall harm to mental health and
greater mortality from other diseases like cancer and cardiovascular disease because
we are so focused on banishing a single pathogen that people who suffer from these
diseases cannot get the help they need.
14
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
That would be taking society backwards not forwards.
References from Myself

1. Barone PW, Wiebe ME, Leung JC, Hussein ITM, Keumurian FJ, Bouressa J, Brussel
A, Chen D, Chong M, Dehghani H, Gerentes L, Gilbert J, Gold D, Kiss R, Kreil TR,
Labatut R, Li Y, Müllberg J, Mallet L, Menzel C, Moody M, Monpoeho S, Murphy
M, Plavsic M, Roth NJ, Roush D, Ruffing M, Schicho R, Snyder R, Stark D, Zhang C,
Wolfrum J, Sinskey AJ, Springs SL. (2020) Viral contamination in biologic
manufacture and implications for emerging therapies. Nat Biotechnol. May;38(5):563-
572.
2. Eduardo Simões, Ludwig Burger OCTOBER 21, 2020, AstraZeneca COVID-19
vaccine trial Brazil volunteer dies, trial to continue
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazil-vaccine-
idUSKBN2762MO)
3. Reuters: AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine trial Brazil volunteer dies, trial to continue
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/10/22/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-trial-brazil-
volunteer-dies-trial/?
guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_ref
errer_sig=AQAAABAbkO2qzKMeF9dzQirOqMty-
TH13V3qIuDKCHkYkKOtBqR0juPGJFE1igHfLRQyjHQq8R1xJY62kZAfXNhEzM
3auqSU5bEiMfgoICuNoTsjJHpvkJSs7ZNK_bqE3R6JmeQr9qTI2cr6eyQ_6Cl6xmpF
B449GMYJ4Z8iYv_dW0A0
4. Jeremy Loffredo, SEPTEMBER 11, 2020, COVID-19 Vaccine Participant Develops
Neurological Symptoms, AstraZeneca Pauses Trial
(https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-participant-develops-
neurological-symptoms-astrazeneca-pauses-trial/)
5. WHO, 12 November 2020, Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-
vaccines)
6. Rob Verkerk Ph.D, 11/16/20, Pfizer Vaccine 90% Effective Claim Unsubstantiated by
Peer-Review Journals and World Health Organization (Can the public afford to trust
vaccine companies who deliberately withhold information and data and have preyed
on the public’s desperation to escape lockdowns, while, at the same time, reaping the
rewards from the stock market that has responded to a premature and unsupported
announcement?) (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-vaccine-claim-
unsubstantiated-peer-review-journals-who/)
7. Xu et al (2020) mRNA Vaccine Era—Mechanisms, Drug Platform and Clinical
Prospection, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6582; doi:10.3390/ijms21186582,
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/18/6582/htm
8. Guilherme Cordenonsida Fonseca Luiz Felipe Valterde Oliveira Guilherme Lossde
MoraiscRicardo VilelaAbdelnord Alexandre Lima Nepomuceno Peter M.Waterhouse
Laurent Farinelli RogerioMargis, Unusual RNA plant virus integration in the soybean
genome leads to the production of small RNAs, Plant Science, Volume 246, May
2016, Pages 62-69.
15
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168945216300115?via
%3Dihub)
9. Nam-phuong D. Nguyen, Viraj Deshpande, Jens Luebeck, Paul S. Mischel and Vineet
Bafna, ViFi: accurate detection of viral integration and mRNA fusion reveals
indiscriminate and unregulated transcription in proximal genomic regions in cervical
cancer. Nucleic Acids Research, 2018, Vol. 46, No. 7 3309–3325, doi:
10.1093/nar/gky180,
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283451/pdf/gky180.pdf)
10. Cristina Cossetti, Luana Lugini, Letizia Astrologo, Isabella Saggio, Stefano Fais,,
Corrado Spadafora, Soma-to-Germline Transmission of RNA in Mice Xenografted
with Human Tumour Cells: Possible Transport by Exosomes. PLOS ONE, July 2014 |
Volume 9 | Issue 7 | e101629
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081593/pdf/pone.0101629.pdf)
11. Antonietta M Gatti, Stefano Montanari (2017) New Quality-Control Investigations on
Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and
Vaccination Volume 4 Issue 1 00072. http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-
00072.pdf
12. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/author/rob-verkerk/
13. J Sam Daniel Stalin, December 02, 2020 7:06 am IST, He Lost Ability To Do Simple
Tasks": Vaccine Volunteer's Wife To NDTV. (https://www.ndtv.com/india-
news/wife-of-vaccine-volunteer-sued-by-serum-institute-of-india-we-cant-stay-quiet-
2332618?amp=1&akamai-rum=off)
14. https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0
15. Jaymin C. Patel, Ousmane M. Diop, Tracie Gardner, Smita ChavanJaume Jorba,
Steven G. F. Wassilak, Jamal Ahmed, Cynthia J. Snider (2019) Surveillance to Track
Progress Toward Polio Eradication — Worldwide, 2017–2018 Weekly / April 5,
2019 / 68(13);312–318
16. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/response-to-the-british-government-proposal-
to-roll-out-a-covd-19-vaccine-before-christmas/ SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 Response to
the British Government Proposal to Roll Out A COVID-19 Vaccine Before Christmas.
Guest Editorial by John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism.
17. M. Mold, D. Umar, A. King, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in autism, J. Trace
Elem. Med. Biol. 46 (2018) 76–82.
18. Lujan, L et al (2013) Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants
(ASIA syndrome) in commercial sheep. Immunologic Research 56:317–324
19. Wakayama, I. Nerurkar, V.R. Strong, M.J. Garruto, R.M. (1996) Comparative study of
chronic aluminum-induced neurofilamentous aggregates with intracytoplasmic
inclusions of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Acta Neuropathol Dec;92(6):545-54.
20. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/gardasil-lawsuit-claims-hpv-vaccine-caused-
teen-severe-injuries/
21. Zhang, P. Sun, F. Liu, S. Jiang, S.(2016) Anti-PEG antibodies in the clinic: current
issues and beyond PEGylation J Control Release. Dec 28; 244(Pt B): 184–193.
22. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/a-dangerous-inactive-ingredient/
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020, A Dangerous Inactive Ingredient, ditorial by Harold R.
Gielow, LtCol USMC (Ret.)
16
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
23. Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies and call
for co-signing the petition. December 1, 2020. https://2020news.de/en/dr-wodarg-and-
dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-and-call-for-co-signing-
the-petition/
24. Dr Lisa Forsberg*, Dr Isra Black**, Dr Thomas Douglas*, Dr Jonathan Pugh (2020)
Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law.
(https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9253/html/?
fbclid=IwAR2Cq4BViNtwq39WA1T4kvFyuZkG6dw9iHeP47cgyCTqbZ5vSP-
IKaTrIqc)
25.
17
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
Distributing Vaccines and Treatments for COVID-19 and flu
I deal with the government’s amendments to current regulations around vaccines and the use
of licensed versus unlicensed medicines as follows:
Introduction
1. Regarding: However, if there is a compelling case, on public health grounds, for using
a vaccine before it is given a product licence, given the nature of the threat we face,
the JCVI may take the very unusual step of advising the UK government to use a
tested, unlicensed vaccine against COVID-19, :
a. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) should not
under any terms be considering an unlicensed vaccine in the first instance, as
every vaccine produced thus far should not be exempt from liability.
b. The whole premise of safe vaccines, means that the onus needs to be on the
manufacturer, in this case, the pharmaceutical company, to provide evidence
that taking the vaccine is safer than succumbing to the infectious disease.
c. Medical ethics deliberation has always been based on the first principle that no
treatment be done unless it yields health.
d. There is no compelling case for using an unlicensed vaccine or medical
product in a pandemic or on public health grounds, as vaccines and medical
products need to be released only on the premise that it is safer to take the
vaccine or product than getting the disease. Current laws are in place to protect
the public against unlicensed medicines / vaccines for very good reason.
e. No laws should be changed to make this protection less stringent, whether
there is pandemic or no pandemic.
f. 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. Therefore the JCVI cannot be considered to be an
independent body with no conflict of interest when it comes to legislating laws
around the product licences for vaccines or any other medicinal product.30
2. Regarding: Regulation 345 of the Human Medicine Regulations transposes into UK

law a requirement of EU law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot
generally be sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an
unlicensed product, or a new use of a licensed product, that a national licensing
authority is recommending in order to deal with certain specific health threats.
a. Regulation 345 is giving manufacturers and pharmaceutical ‘carte blanche’ to
produce a vaccine / medical treatment for which the public can no longer hold
them liable for. This is both irresponsible and unethical of the government.
b. This government and previous governments have no track record of protecting
the public: their credibility has been damaged by turning away applications for
18
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
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.30
c. No informed individual in the public domain would consent to be vaccinated
or medically treated for a product for which the manufacturer cannot be sued
in the civil courts for causing harm to their health.
Policy objectives
3. Regarding: In the interests of patient safety and providing clarity to the supply chain,
clarify our approach to a pre-existing provision (regulation 174) in the HMRs, that
enables the licensing authority to temporarily authorise the supply of an unlicensed
medicinal product for use in response to certain specific types of public health threat,
including the suspected spread of pathogens.
a. Temporary authorisation to supply an unlicensed medicinal product is the
height of irresponsible and unethical governmental policy making, and should
not be considered under any circumstances.
b. No public health threat or suspected spread of pathogens warrants putting the
public at more risk to other diseases potentially worse than what they were
trying to avoid in the first place, e.g. as is the case in post HBV vaccination
where injected subjects have developed permanent damage via central nervous
system demyelination (e.g. multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis), both of
which have no cure and are degenerative. Symptoms consistent with transverse
myelitis is what has affected one Covid-19 participant according to the New
York times.29
4. Regarding: Ensure that the UK has the available workforce to administer the COVID-
19 vaccine and influenza vaccine.
a. Enabling the UK to have an adequate workforce to administer vaccines should
not be at the expense of the correct treatment of the public who are best
served by medically qualified practitioners, who understand demographics,
co-morbidities, autoimmunity susceptibility, genetic haplotypes and
personalised risk assessments.
b. This cannot be the case for a hastily assembled workforce, who do not have the
experience nor medical background necessary to assess patients according to
these categories.
c. John Stone states: “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.”30
19
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
5. Regarding: Ensure that the vaccines and treatments used in response to certain specific
types of public health threat, such as a COVID-19 vaccine, can be promoted as part of
national vaccination or treatment campaigns
a. Vaccines should not be treated like they need to be promoted like commercial
products.
b. No medicine should be treated like it needs to be forced down people’s throats.
People should not be made to feel pressured to take vaccines.
c. The ultimate decision for medical treatment for a potential future infection or
potential disease by international law is the right of the individual as stated by:
i. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which derives from the Nuremberg Code of 1947, i.e. “No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free
consent to medical or scientific experimentation,” and
ii. Principle 9, of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, i.e. “is the duty of
physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life,
health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and
confidentiality of personal information of research subjects.”
d. John Stone states: “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.”30
Nature of the consultation
6. Regarding: These legislative changes will also ensure that businesses who may be
supplying vaccines and organisations that may be administering them can have as
much confidence in the nature of the legal framework they will be operating under as
we can reasonably give them – while also ensuring patient safety remains central to
any proposal.
a. Patient safety does not seem to be central to the government’s proposal, or they
would realise that removing liability from the manufacturers of vaccines, is a
threat to the protection of the public.
High-level nature of the proposals
7. Regarding: What this consultation exercise is definitely not about is who would, or
would not, be vaccinated as part of a COVID-19 or flu vaccination programme, or
how the NHS in each UK nation would commission or run it.
a. Any vaccination programme needs to bear in mind that vaccines like any other
medicine, is subject to the public understanding how beneficial it is for their
wellbeing.
20
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
b. If a government sanctions the release of an unlicensed vaccine in a national
vaccination programme, this is removing the protections in place for the public
to hold both the government and the manufacturers accountable for any harm
caused as a result. No informed member of the public will agree to participate
in such a programme.
c. Each member of the population should be free to consent to medical treatment
which includes medicinal products or vaccines, and this should not be
controlled by mass vaccination programmes promoted by governments as this
is removing our human rights under international law – see above point 5c.
Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products
8. Regarding: At no point does the product itself become ‘authorised’ in the sense of
‘licensed’ – it remains unlicensed. However, we should also be clear that ‘unlicensed’
does not mean ‘untested’, and that regulation 174 exists to address the possibility
that, in certain situations of public health need, the licensing authority may consider
that the balance of risk and benefit to patients justifies authorising temporary supply
of a medicine such as a COVID-19 vaccine pending the issue of a product licence.
a. Balance of risk and benefit to patients is a subjective consideration, and
dangerous in the light of the government seeking to remove liability by the
manufacturers of the vaccine.
b. No informed member of the public will think that justifying the temporary
supply of an unlicensed Covid-19 vaccine with no manufacturer liability is in
the best interests of the safety of the public. The opposite is the case.
9. Regarding: If the need arises, regulation 174, in its present form, could be used to
authorise nationwide distribution and supply of an unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine (or
treatment) in the UK, as well as other potential products. In practice, this means that,
if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate – with strong supporting evidence of safety,
quality and efficacy – became available before the end of the transition period but it
had not yet been licensed by the European Medicines Agency, regulation 174 could be
used to enable temporary UK-only deployment.
a. No astute and fully informed member of the public would agree to the
sanctioning of regulation 174 to allow release of an unlicensed Covid-19
vaccine with no manufacturer liability for temporary UK-only deployment.
Proposed amendments in relation to temporary authorisation
10. Regarding: As mentioned above, a COVID-19 vaccine would only be authorised in

this way if the licensing authority was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the safety, quality and efficacy of the vaccine,
a. If there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety, quality and efficacy of
the vaccine, pressure should be put on the manufacturer / pharmaceutical
21
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
company to be held liable for any adverse effects that then ensue, and they
should be liable to being sued in a civil court of law.
b. Government and manufacturers who are confident that the vaccine is safe,
should have no qualms that any civil cases will arise due to vaccine harm, and
should leave existing public protective laws alone.
11. Regarding: Overall, this change, we believe, would bring clarity and thus strengthen
the performance of the supply chain for products whose supply is authorised under
this route, which in turn will help to ensure patient safety and is therefore in the best
interests of all.
a. The proposed amendments to regulation 174 are not in the best interests of the
British public as they have no right to sue the manufacturer or government in a
civil court of law when harm is caused due to vaccine side effects.
b. The public are well aware of the multiple side effects of vaccines, as adverse
events are widely reported post vaccination from the following vaccines: polio,
chicken pox, pertussis toxin, dengue, Covid-19 (Oxford), influenza, hepatitis B
virus, human papilloma virus, H1N1 virus. These are listed below.
Civil liability and immunity
12. Regarding: Any decision to roll out mass vaccination programmes for unlicensed
COVID-19 vaccines, or indeed any pandemic disease treatments, will be taken
nationally, not by the individual companies manufacturing or marketing the product.
a. If any decision to roll out mass vaccination programmes for unlicensed Covid-
19 vaccines is taken nationally, this means that the government is directly
liable for any vaccine harm caused to the public.
b. It is highly unethical of the government by seeking to take responsibility for
liability out of the hands of the vaccine manufacturer, pharmaceutical company
or the marketing company, and further making itself and these parties
unaccountable to the public for any harm caused by unlicensed vaccines
/medical products.
c. This is the worst kind of policy, which is the opposite of putting the safety of
the public first, and is the opposite of what a government should be doing for
its citizens.
Who is protected from liability
13. Regarding the following statements:

a. What regulation 345 does, therefore, is transpose into UK law a requirement
of EU law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot generally be
22
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an
unlicensed product and
b. It is however appropriate to treat the person bringing an unlicensed
medicinal product to market in no worse a way than the manufacturer who is
producing the product on their behalf and The UK government therefore
proposes to clarify the legislation by putting the pharmaceutical company
responsible for placing unlicensed products on the market on the same
footing as manufacturers of unlicensed products – and the same footing as
marketing authorisation holders of products which the licensing authority
recommends are used otherwise than in accordance with their authorisation.
This will help to give companies willing to co-operate in the sort of mass
vaccination programme under consideration for COVID-19, or mass
distribution of treatments in other situations, some assurance that they will not
be exposed inappropriately to civil liability.
c. By putting the most advanced state of scientific knowledge at the time the
product is made available at the heart of the protection that is offered, the
CPA does not provide a warranty of performance, i.e. that the product will
work or (in the case of a medicine) will not have side effects. However, issues
of liability could arise under the Part 1 of CPA if, for example, a medicine was
significantly less well tolerated or had significantly greater side effects than
other equivalent medicines.
i. Liability has to arise for the manufacturer or the government regardless
of whether the medicine has the same or significantly greater side
effects than other equivalent medicines.
ii. The fact that there has been an adverse effect means that a member of
the public has had to suffer possibly permanent lifetime damage.
iii. Therefore, all vaccine product inserts need to be supplied with a
comprehensive list of adverse side effects, which have been determined
across multiple people types and parameters as per point 14 (a).
Extent of the protection
14. Regarding: If there is an intrinsic problem with the nature of the product that renders
it unsafe, the producer has to be able to show that the objective state of scientific and
technical knowledge at the time it was put on the market, including the most advanced
level of such knowledge, was not such as to enable that defect to be discovered.
a. This is why safety testing for vaccines has to be conducted over a sufficiently
long period of several years, across multiple demographics, co-morbidities,
multiple genetic haplotypes, and autoimmune susceptible individuals, and
having had due consideration for all viral particles and adjuvants that could
cause hitherto unregistered side effects.
When the protection is lost
23
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
15. Regarding: The UK government believes that sufficiently serious breaches should lead
to loss of immunity from civil liability, but that opens up the question of what should
amount to a sufficiently serious breach for these purposes?
a. Regulation 345 should not be used to remove loss of immunity from civil
liability for manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies as these vaccines are
already well known to have side effects in vaccinated subjects and cause
injected subjects to be life time carriers of the disease, as is the case with
pertussis toxin, chicken pox and polio vaccines.
b. Any future vaccine (unlicensed or licensed) should never be considered for
release to the public without having undergone adequate tests for safety in all
co-morbidities, demographics, genetic haplotypes, autoimmune susceptible
individuals, and having had due consideration for all viral particles and
adjuvants that could cause hitherto unregistered side effects.
c. This testing needs to be done over a sufficient period of time as side effects do
not manifest themselves immediately, and many are chronic, permanent effects
such as multiple sclerosis due to HBV vaccines.
16. Regarding: However, the advantage of a ‘reasonable’ pharmaceutical company in this

context is that they can indeed be expected to have detailed knowledge about every
aspect of the supply chain from manufacture to final supply. The final decision on
what the ‘objective bystander’ would think – whether the ordinary man or woman in
the street or the specialist bystander – would of course be for the courts.
a. The pharmaceutical company by definition cannot be an objective bystander in
this case as they have an agenda to sell the vaccine.
b. They may have detailed knowledge about every aspect of manufacture to final
supply, but they cannot be independent in their technical understanding and
experience because they have a direct conflict of interest in fulfilling the
requirement of being an objective bystander.
17. Regarding: We have also made provision to take account of the fact that there may
also be cases where someone in the supply chain is responsible for a breach in
circumstances where they should lose their liability but others in the supply chain
should not. For example, a manufacturer may have done something wrong but the
person administering the product is completely blameless.
a. The person administering the product needs to be aware of the full safety data
around the supply, production and testing of the vaccine in order to administer
it to a member of the public safely and in order to be able to advise them of all
potential hazards / side effects that could arise as a result of taking the product,
e.g. a vaccine.
b. The lack of provision of sufficient information that would be required to
ensure properly informed consent would likely constitute a breach of The
Human Rights Act 1998.
c. In the case Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital
Governors [1985] AC 871, Lord Carman stated: “A doctor who operates
without the consent of his patient, save in cases of emergency or mental
24
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
disability, is guilty of the civil wrong of trespass to the person; he is also guilty
of the criminal offence of assault."
18. Regarding: Because of this, we propose to clarify that only those persons or entities
who are ‘wholly or partly responsible’ for a breach of the conditions lose immunity,
rather than every operator in the supply chain.
a. This proposition means that some uninformed, unqualified and potentially
irresponsible operators in the supply chain could be exempt from liability,
which is wrong.
Vaccinators who are not registered healthcare professionals
19. Regarding: It will also be apparent in what we say about workforce expansion that
someone other than a registered healthcare professional may actually be
administering unlicensed vaccines – and as a basic issue of fairness, we think they
should benefit from the same immunity from civil liability as a registered healthcare
professional who is performing the same role, if the person who is not a healthcare
professional is following one of the proposed new protocols.
a. This is a foolish proposition by the government to allow unregistered
healthcare professionals to administer unlicensed vaccines.
b. The background of knowledge required to administer vaccines over the years,
has required registered healthcare professionals to be fully educated in
potential contraindications and side effects due to the propensity of vaccines to
cause autoimmune effects in susceptible gene pools / particular genetic
haplotypes and particular co-morbidities and demographics. This background
of knowledge cannot be just summoned up by inexperienced unregistered
healthcare professionals.
Routine enforcement
20. Regarding: Finally, the amendments will clarify the legal consequences of a breach of
conditions for enforcement purposes. We propose that this should be subject to the
standard penalties already set out in law for breaches of Marketing Authorisation
conditions: a theoretical penalty of an unlimited fine and 2 years in jail.
a. No, the level of penalties need to be decided according to the seriousness of
breach of conditions regarding the manufacture, supply and safety of the
medical product / vaccine with respect to human population.
21. Regarding: The essential point is that, on this particular issue, we are proposing to
treat breaches of licence conditions and breaches of conditions of unlicensed supply
in the same way, which puts companies marketing unlicensed products for pandemic
25
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
use in no better, or no worse, position than they would be in if the product was
licensed.
a. This is a dangerous statement as the government should not under any terms be
considering an unlicensed vaccine in the first instance, as every vaccine
produced thus far should not be exempt from liability in order to protect the
public.
b. The whole premise of safe vaccines, means that the onus needs to be on the
manufacturer, in this case, the pharmaceutical company, to provide evidence
that taking the vaccine is safer than succumbing to the infectious disease.
Proposed expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
22. Regarding: There is a possibility that both the flu vaccine and the COVID-19 vaccine
will be delivered at the same time, and we need to make sure that in this scenario
there is sufficient workforce to allow for this.
a. It is dangerous to the public for the reasons stated earlier, (i.e. healthcare
professionals need to be fully educated in potential contraindications and side
effects due to the propensity of vaccines to cause autoimmune effects in
susceptible gene pools / particular genetic haplotypes and particular co-
morbidities and demographics) and therefore it is unethical to allow an
unregistered workforce to administer vaccines.
23. Regarding: Expand the scope of patient group directions (PGDs) to allow the
administration of any medicine, including COVID-19 vaccines, the supply of which
has been temporarily authorised under regulation 174 of the HMRs. PGDs are
usually used to expand the professionals able to deliver prescription-only medicines to
individuals. They are used, for example, as part of the annual national influenza
immunisation programme by pharmacists working in community pharmacies.
However, currently a PGD cannot be used to administer anything that does not have a
full marketing authorisation (or one of the currently listed regulatory equivalents)
from MHRA. This change will enable the workforce that already operates under
PGDs to deliver vaccinations to continue to do so for unlicensed vaccine.
a. 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. 30
b. No member of the public who is fully aware of the inadequacy of scientific
safety data around vaccines and the defects of global vaccine adverse event
reporting systems will be reassured that getting a vaccine from an unregistered
health professional such as an occupational therapist, will equip them with all
the support needed in dealing with any post vaccination effects. Once again,
this is a poorly thought out, unethical action on the part of the government.
26
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
24. Regarding:
a. Introduce a new type of national protocol, to be authorised by UK ministers
and the devolved administrations, which will allow those who are registered
healthcare professionals who do not normally vaccinate, and people who are
not registered healthcare professionals, to safely administer a licensed or
temporarily authorised COVID-19 or influenza vaccine
b. Expand the workforce legally allowed to administer vaccines under NHS and
local authority occupational health schemes, so that additional healthcare
professionals in the occupational health workforce will be able to administer
vaccines.
c. The proposals would expand the workforce that can administer COVID-19
and flu vaccinations under an NHS or local authority occupational health
scheme so that it also includes midwives, nursing associates, operating
department practitioners, paramedics, physiotherapists and pharmacists.
i. No member of the public who is fully aware of the inadequacy of
scientific safety data around vaccines and the defects of global vaccine
adverse event reporting systems will be reassured that getting a vaccine
from an unregistered health professional such as an occupational
therapist, will equip them with all the support needed in dealing with
any post vaccination effects. Once again, this is a poorly thought out,
unethical action on the part of the government.
Vaccine promotion
25. Regarding: Currently there is a prohibition on promoting an unlicensed medicine to

healthcare professionals and the public. The UK government is proposing that this
prohibition is disapplied to allow (subject to the other restrictions in the HMRs)
advertising of any temporarily authorised products under regulation 174, including a
COVID-19 vaccine.
a. Promoting an unlicensed medicine is prohibited for good reason – the normal
safety checks which are associated with a licensed medicine are not available
legally.
b. Therefore, the public should not be targeted with promotions for an unlicensed
vaccine or medicine, as adequate safety protocols which are normally required
for the release of a licensed product into the market, have not been fulfilled.
c. This is also highly unethical of this government.
26. Regarding: There will also be amendments to allow for some easements from the other
restrictions in Part 14 of the HMRs – for example the prohibition on advertising
prescription-only medicines. Some of these restrictions – which deal essentially with
advertisements to the public, are already disapplied in the case of vaccination
campaigns, and that approach is extended to all products given temporary
authorisations under regulation 174. The disapplications would be restricted to
advertising as part of a campaign approved by ministers and would permit the
27
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
supplier to participate in any public or healthcare professional information campaign
relating to the use of the medicine.
a. Advertisements to the public for products given temporary authorisations is
once again irresponsible as these products should not be authorised to be
released for public use until adequate safety checks have been completed and
the product is licensed according to law. This process is in place with good
reason – to protect the public.
b. This government is seeking to do the very opposite in a rush to provide
unlicensed vaccines to the detriment of the health of the people, if there is no
liability in place for the pharmaceutical companies that product these products
which have potential for great harm as well as good.
27. Regarding: A number of changes have also been made to the special requirements for
advertisements wholly or mainly directed at qualified prescribers. These have also
been adapted to take into account the new arrangements for temporary
authorisations.
a. Advertisements to qualified prescribers should only be allowed for licensed
vaccines and medical treatments.
b. Any changes to the existing law puts the public at risk, which is highly
irresponsible and unethical of this government.
28. Regarding: Overall, the amendments proposed will ensure that the use of the vaccine
and treatments that have been temporarily authorised for sale or supply can be
promoted as part of national campaigns in each of the 4 countries of the UK.
a. Unlicensed vaccines and treatments should never be allowed to be promoted in
this country.
b. Such amendments are an abrogation of our human and democratic rights to
consent to safe, regulated medicines, which should not be forcibly promoted to
the public for them to accept their efficacy.
The government and the public need to know that the following vaccine harms exist in the
scientific literature:
Current Issues Around Vaccines Of Which The Public Are Unaware

1. 1 in 40 overall vaccine injury rate – HHS findings – see presentation by Robert F
Kennedy 27
2. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) – Multiple previous studies regarding the prevalence of anti-
PEG antibodies in the population have stated that prescreening for these antibodies should be
done prior to administration of any PEG containing medication due to the adverse effects on
subjects e.g. severe anaphylactic responses - Zhang et al (2016)24. ‘Not everyone with pre-
existing PEG antibodies will have a severe reaction to a vaccine containing PEG, but there is
a significant danger that many will. Ideally, the safety and efficacy effects on those with pre-
existing antibodies to PEG would be determined in the clinical trials. However, as Moderna’s
28
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
trial is not pre-screening participants for anti-PEG antibodies they cannot, therefore,
characterize the risk. They are flying blind.’ - Harold R. Gielow, LtCol USMC 25
3. Thimerasol – statistically significant odds ratios for the development of autism following
increasing doses of mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines – Geier & Geier (2004)19. It
has also been shown by Silva et al (2020) to be toxic for humans by causing conformational
changes in haemoglobin, a decrease in oxygen binding capacity, and induce the formation of
protein glycation end products and amyloids. 18
4. Formaldehyde – case report of a 48-year-old male who developed explosive dermatitis

following injection of a formaldehyde-containing influenza vaccine - Kuritzky & Pratt
(2015)26.
5. Aluminium – the concentration of this adjuvant in vaccines has been linked to autism21,
and studies in animals show that aluminium-containing vaccines contribute to
neuropathological changes that include neurodegeneration of the grey matter of the spinal
cord22 and hindlimb paralysis.23
6. Nanoparticles – what downstream effects will these have in humans? Have these been
tested? Unlikely that they have been tested in current time frames for a Covid-19 vaccine.
a. Gatti and Montanari (2017) 28 verified the presence of saline and aluminum
salts, but also the further presence of micro-, submicro- and nanosized,
inorganic, foreign bodies (e.g. aluminum, silicon, magnesium and titanium
iron, chromium, calcium particles) (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns)
was identified in 44 types of vaccines, whose presence was not declared in the
leaflets delivered in the package of the product.
b. These nanoparticles show nano-bio-interactions, are foreign bodies, and being
particularly small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic
because most of those particles cannot be degraded.
c. The proteincorona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction can produce
organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune
system in an undesirable way. The particles the size often observed in
vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA.
d. Given the contaminations they observed in all samples of human-use vaccines,
adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and
credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where
the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation.
e. Similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on
very small organisms like those of children.
7. Viral contamination – viral infection of mammalian cell culture is a real risk with severe
consequences. Four (herpesvirus, human adenovirus type 1, parainfluenza virus type 3
and reovirus type 3) of the five viruses found to contaminate human and primate cell
lines are known to be pathogenic in humans, whereas only one (Cache Valley virus) of the
viruses found to contaminate CHO cell culture has been reported to cause disease in humans.
These data highlight that the viral contamination of protein products produced in human or
29
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
primate cell lines pose a higher safety risk to patients and the manufacturing process due to
human cell line susceptibility to infection by viruses that are pathogenic in humans – Barone
et al (2020)20.
8. Normally vaccines take at least 10 years to produce at least in order to determine their
safety.
9. Has adequate testing been done in all co-morbidities and demographics for Covid-19
vaccines? Personalised risk assessment is needed for those with susceptibility for
autoimmune diseases – Soriano et al (2015)6. There hasn’t been sufficient time in the space of
a few months during 2020 for safety testing to be correctly, safely and adequately completed
this for the sake of the protection of the public from side effects, which we know are
significant for all other vaccines.
10. Major Flaws in papers stating that vaccines are safe:

a) Girard (2005)3 & (2007)4 point to flaws in papers stating hepatitis B virus (HBV)
vaccine is safe
b) Jefferson & Jorgenson (2017)7 and Dahan & Shoenfeld (2017)8 point to flaws in
papers stating human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines are safe
11. Molecular mimicry (where an immune reaction against foreign pathogens similar to
human proteins results in autoimmune targeting of your own proteins) can lead to adverse
effects:
a) surface antigens (SHBsAg) in HBV vaccines cross react with myelin
oligodendrocyte glycoproteins (MOG) in 60% of vaccinated subjects –
Bogdanos et al (2005)5
b) polymerases in vaccines can induce immune cross reaction in susceptible
individuals, e.g. HBV polymerase in HBV vaccines cross reacts with human
myelin basic protein in vaccinated subjects who develop multiple sclerosis –
Faure (2005)6
c) HPV peptides in all three HPV vaccines show homology to compliment
components and natural killer cell receptors which are known to be
dysregulated in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – Segal et al (2017) 9 &
10
.
d) HPV peptides mimic human proteins such as cardiac myosin associated with
arrhythmias – Kanduc (2011) 17.
12. Antibody-dependent enhancement – happens when the vaccine causes a higher
proportion of binding antibodies rather than neutralizing antibodies. The neutralising
antibodies neutralise the virus, but the binding antibodies just bind the virus instead. Having
bound the virus, the virus can then be internalised into the cell, and a vaccinated subject with
enhanced binding antibodies would then have a more severe reaction to the actual
natural virus. This has happened with children vaccinated with dengue vaccine.31
30
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
13. Adverse events already described for vaccines against – polio, chicken pox, pertussis
toxin, dengue, Covid-19 (Oxford), influenza, hepatitis B virus, human papilloma virus, H1N1
virus:
a) Narcolepsy and Guillain-Barre syndrome for A(H1N1) pandemic vaccine
containing inactivated split-virion particles containing influenza nucleoprotein
and AS03 adjuvant (composed of DL-alpha-tocopherol, squalene and
polysorbate 80): vaccinated populations of Beijing (3 fold narcolepsy
diagnosis increase in 2010) and vaccinated European children and adolescents
(significantly increased incidence of narcolepsy)
b) Significant 4-8 fold increase in incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome in

1976 during mass influenza immunization in US due to influenza vaccine
developed with anti-GM1 antibodies; 2-3 fold increase in incidence of
Guillain-Barre syndrome in 2009 in 70 million vaccinated people
c) Several case reports published regarding major adverse effects such as central
nervous system demyelination (e.g. multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis)
arising after HBV (hepatitis B vaccine) immunisation, e.g. Herroelen et al
(1991)2, where all the patients were HLA haplotypes DR2 and B7 – linking
autoimmunity to vaccines with environment (exposure to vaccines) and
genetics (certain HLA haplotypes)
d) Significant association of Lupus with HPV vaccine – 48, 816 reports of SLE
compared to 21,998 controls reporting adverse effects other than SLE to the
US Vaccine adverse event reporting system, showed that subjects with SLE
were significantly more likely to have received the HPV quadrivalent vaccine
with onset 3-37 days post vaccination – Geier & Geier (2016)12.
e) Deaths of 600 children were under investigation in the Philippines in

connection with Dengvaxia – Sanofi Pasteur’s dengue vaccine, more than
100,000 Philippine children received a vaccine that health officials say
increased their risk of a severe and sometimes deadly condition.31
f) Significantly increased incidence of symptoms (syncope, dizziness,

headaches, nausea, fatigue and palpitations) consistent with postural
orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (characterised by inappropriately
significant increase in heart rate on standing up accompanied by decreased
blood flow to the brain leading to orthostatic intolerance) after vaccination
with HPV vaccine compared with other vaccines – Dahan et al (2016) 15 &
Chandler et al (2017) 16.
g) 49/88 women (55%) showed symptoms of POTS after HPV vaccination –

Brinth et al 2015 13 & 14.
31
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
h) In addition to officially acknowledged vaccine-derived polio cases, which
increased substantially from 2018 to 2019, the African region also annually
reports tens of thousands of cases—over 31,500 from just 18 countries in 2017
—of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), a debilitating condition with a clinical
picture virtually identical to polio. Many other countries—ranging from India
to Italy—also record significant numbers of AFP cases.32
14. What about existing treatments? Has the government really looked at the efficacy of
these at normal doses which have been used extensively in other countries safely?
a) Hydroxychloroquine, zinc & azithromycin
b) Chloroquine & doxycycline
15. Why is the government not educating the public about natural anti-virals, anti-
bacterials and immune boosters?
a) Arsenicum album 30C
b) Neem leaf powder
c) Raw garlic & raw onion
d) Lemon peel and juice
e) Essential oils (ravintsara, tea tree, peppermint, cinnamomum cassia, niaouli,
cinnamosma fragrans)
16. The ultimate decision for medical treatment for a potential future infection or potential
disease by international law is the right of the individual as stated by:
a) Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
derives from the Nuremberg Code of 1947, i.e. “No one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation,”
b) Principle 9, of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, i.e. “is the duty of

physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life, health,
dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of
personal information of research subjects.”
17. How are is the government going to ensure manufacturers have checked for all co-
morbidities, demographics, and do personalised risk assessment for the Covid-19 vaccine in
18 months?
18. An unlicensed vaccine without liability for the manufacturer against adverse events which
clearly are of deep concern to those in science who have studied scores of papers, means that
the public are walking into an unknown future of chronic and acute disease – the very thing
that they took the vaccine to avoid.
19. Some quotes in the literature worth noting:
32
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
a) ‘However, these findings accentuate the importance of meticulous appraisal of
the safety profile of new influenza vaccines as they emerge.
b) ‘’In fact, the first suggestion of autoimmune ramifications of a possible vaccine
yet to be developed was published in Nature as early as 1975, as a ‘note of
caution’ urging for a ‘careful assessment of all vaccine effects on the immune
system.’
c) “These case reports accentuate the need for large-scale studies designed to
ascertain whether HBV vaccination entails a risk for autoimmune
neurological adverse events.”
d) ‘Considering the current body of knowledge regarding the pathogenesis of
immune crossreactivity, it seems reasonable to assume that the risk for
autoimmunity is mainly relevant for those with susceptibility for autoimmune
diseases (such as individuals with a family history of autoimmunity, subjects
known to have autoantibodies and those carrying a certain genetic profile). These
populations may benefit from a personalised risk assessment before
vaccination.’
e) ‘It seems ironic then that vaccines may induce the very same immune
crossreactivity they serve to prevent. However, when considering the fact that
vaccines inevitably contain the infectious particles, it is rather expected.’
f) ‘Suspected associations are commonly deduced based on accumulating case
reports and large-scale analyses of adverse event databases (such as US Vaccine
adverse event reporting system). These are hardly sufficient to determine with
certainty the nature of suggested correlations; however we believe such findings,
viewed by some as a threat to the invaluable practice of vaccination, should
instead serve as vital red flags, alerting the need for constant investigation.’
g) As history teaches us, vaccines, … are subject to possible flaws in the same
manner that all man-made developments are. Such were the cellular pertussis
vaccine and the Rotashield vaccine – both products which were discontinued
due to a high incidence of adverse events.’
The above quotes from Segal & Shoenfeld (2018)1 show that:
1. Careful safety testing is needed in large scale studies over a sufficiently long period
of time in order to truly identify adverse events (known to manifest months or
years post vaccination) across multiple demographics, co-morbidities, genetic
haplotypes, those with autoimmune disease susceptibility and those with pre-existing
PEG antibodies
2. Vaccines may induce the very same crossreactivity they serve to prevent which is
expected when vaccines contain infectious particles, adjuvants, or nanoparticles
3. Adverse events serve as red flags alerting the need for constant investigation, and
are not a threat to trustworthy safe medicine.
This government needs to understand that they need to protect the public and our existing
laws are in place for that reason. They also need to understand the well known side effects of
vaccines. Viral infections like Covid-19 or influenza are a threat to public health, but the
government needs to assess all safety data around vaccines before they change protective laws
which safeguard the public from harm due to vaccines potentially rushed into production and
33
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
release. This harm can also be caused due to manufacturer non-disclosure, omission or errors
of relevant data or information relating to vaccine quality, safety or effectiveness.
All vaccines and medical treatments are for each member of the public to decide what is in the
best interests of his or her own health, wellbeing and protection. This is the basic individual
right of every human being on this planet – to make a choice as to what vaccine they will
accept and what medical treatment they think is right for them personally.
It is not the mandate of the government to decide for the public what vaccines the public
should take in any given season, time or situation, or that only vaccines are the best way to
deal with a pandemic. I refer the government to the wise words of John Stone, UK Editor of
Age of Autism : “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 by 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).”30
References
1. Segal, Y. & Shoenfeld, Y. (2018) Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of
molecular
2. mimicry and immune crossreaction. Cellular & Molecular Immunology, 15, 586-594.
3. Herroelen, L de Keyser, J. Ebinger, G. (1991) Central nervous system demyelineation
after immunisation with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet Lond Engl 338:
1174-1175.
4. Girard, M. (2005) Autoimmune hazards of hepatitis B vaccine. Autoimmun Rev 4: 96-
100.
5. Girard, M (2007) When evidence based medicine (EBM) fuels confusion: multiple
sclerosis after hepatitis B vaccine as a case in point. Med Veritas 4: 1436-1451.
6. Bogdanos, D-. Smith, H. Ma, Y. Baum, H. Mieli-Vergani, G. Vergani, D. (2005) A
study of molecular mimicry and immunological cross-reactivity between hepatitis B
surface antigen and myelin mimics. Clin Dev Immunol 12: 217-224.
7. Sorian, A. Nesher, G. Shoenfeld, Y. (2015) Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity:
who might be at risk? Pharmacol Res 92: 18-22.
8. Jefferson, T. Jorgenson, L. (2017) Human papillomavirus vaccines, complex regional
pain syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and autonomic dysfunction
– a review of the regulatory evidence from the European Medicines Agency. Indian J
Med Ethics 2: 30-37.
9. Dahan, S. Shoenfeld, Y. (2017) Letter to the editor – HPV vaccine and autoimmunity:
Incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease in girls and women with pre-existing
34
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
autoimmune disease after quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cohort
study. J Intern Med 281: 313-315.
10. Segal, Y. Dahan, S., Calabro, M. Kanduc, D. Shoenfeld, Y. (2017) HPV and systemic
lupus erythematosus: a mosaic of potential crossreactions. Immunol Res 65: 564-571.
11. Segal, Y. Calabro, M. Kanduc, D. Shoenfeld, Y. (2017) Human papilloma virus and
lupus: the virus, the vaccine and the disease. Curr Opin Rheumatol 29: 331-342.
12. Geier, D.A. & Geier, M.R. (2016) Quadrivalent human papilloma vaccine and
autoimmune adverse events: a case-control assessment of the vaccine adverse event
reporting system (VAERS) database. Immunol Res 65: 46-54.
13. Brinth, L.S. Pors, K. Theibel, A.C. Mehlsen, J. (2015) Orthostatic intolerance and
postural tachycardia syndrome as suspected adverse effects of vaccination against
human papilloma virus. Vaccine 33: 2602-2605.
14. Brinth, L. Theibel, A.C. Pors, K. Mehlsen, J. (2015) Suspected side effects to the
quadrivalent human papilloma vaccine. Dan Med J 62: A5064.
15. Dahan, S. Tomljenovic, L. Shoenfeld, Y. (2016) Postural orthostatic tachycardia
syndrome (POTS) – a novel member of the autoimmune family. Lupus 25:339-342.
16. Chandeler, R.E. Juhlin, K. Fransson, J. Caster, O. Edwards, I.R., Noren, G.N. (2017)
Current safety concerns with human papillomavirus vaccine: a cluster analysis pf
reports in VigiBase. Drug Saf 40:81-90.
17. Kanduc, D. (2011) Potential cross-reactivity between HPV16 L1 protein and sudden
death-associated antigens. J Exp Ther Oncol 9:159-165.
18. Marina de Magalhães Silva , Maria Dayanne de Araújo Dantas, Reginaldo Correia da
Silva Filho, Marcos Vinicius Dos Santos Sales, Jadriane de Almeida Xavier, Ana
Catarina Rezende Leite, Marília Oliveira Fonseca Goulart, Luciano Aparecido
Meireles Grillo, Wellington Alves de Barros, Ângelo de Fátima, Isis Martins
Figueiredo, Josué Carinhanha Caldas Santos (2020) Toxicity of thimerosal in
biological systems: Conformational changes in human hemoglobin, decrease of
oxygen binding capacity, increase of protein glycation and amyloid's formation.
Journal of Biological Macromolecules, Volume 154, 1 July, Pages 661-671.
19. Geier, D.A. & Geier, M.R (2004) A comparative evaluation of the effects of MMR
immunization and mercury doses from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines on
the population prevalence of autism. Med Sci Monit Mar;10(3):PI33-9. Epub 2004
Mar 1.
20. Barone PW, Wiebe ME, Leung JC, Hussein ITM, Keumurian FJ, Bouressa J, Brussel
A, Chen D, Chong M, Dehghani H, Gerentes L, Gilbert J, Gold D, Kiss R, Kreil TR,
Labatut R, Li Y, Müllberg J, Mallet L, Menzel C, Moody M, Monpoeho S, Murphy
M, Plavsic M, Roth NJ, Roush D, Ruffing M, Schicho R, Snyder R, Stark D, Zhang C,
Wolfrum J, Sinskey AJ, Springs SL. (2020) Viral contamination in biologic
manufacture and implications for emerging therapies. Nat Biotechnol. May;38(5):563-
572.
21. M. Mold, D. Umar, A. King, C. Exley, Aluminium in brain tissue in autism, J. Trace
Elem. Med. Biol. 46 (2018) 76–82.
22. Lujan, L et al (2013) Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants
(ASIA syndrome) in commercial sheep. Immunologic Research 56:317–324
35
Ver 1.0
S19_1220
23. Wakayama, I. Nerurkar, V.R. Strong, M.J. Garruto, R.M. (1996) Comparative study of
chronic aluminum-induced neurofilamentous aggregates with intracytoplasmic
inclusions of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Acta Neuropathol Dec;92(6):545-54.
24. Zhang, P. Sun, F. Liu, S. Jiang, S.(2016) Anti-PEG antibodies in the clinic: current
issues and beyond PEGylation J Control Release. Dec 28; 244(Pt B): 184–193.
25. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/a-dangerous-inactive-ingredient/
SEPTEMBER 11, 2020, A Dangerous Inactive Ingredient, ditorial by Harold R.
Gielow, LtCol USMC (Ret.)
26. Kuritzky LA, Pratt M. (2015) Systemic Allergic Contact Dermatitis After
Formaldehyde-Containing Influenza Vaccination. J Cutan Med Surg. Sep-
Oct;19(5):504-6.
27. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-debate-is-on-robert-f-kennedy-jr-vs-
alan-dershowitz/ JULY 23, 2020 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. vs Alan Dershowitz: The
Great Vaccine Debate!
28. Antonietta M Gatti,1,2 Stefano Montanari (2017) New Quality-Control Investigations
on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and
Vaccination Volume 4 Issue 1 00072. http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-
00072.pdf
29. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/health/covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-trans.html
Safety Review Underway of AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Trial : A participant in the
company’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial reportedly developed severe
neurological symptoms. Now experts must assess whether the vaccine was
responsible. Katherine J. Wu Sept 10, 2020.
30. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/response-to-the-british-government-proposal-
to-roll-out-a-covd-19-vaccine-before-christmas/ SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 Response to
the British Government Proposal to Roll Out A COVID-19 Vaccine Before Christmas.
Guest Editorial by John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism.
31. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-dengue-vaccine-a-cautionary-tale/
AUGUST 25, 2020 The Dengue Vaccine: A Cautionary Tale Ann Tomoko Rosen,
Guest Contributor
32. Jaymin C. Patel, Ousmane M. Diop, Tracie Gardner, Smita ChavanJaume Jorba,
Steven G. F. Wassilak, Jamal Ahmed, Cynthia J. Snider (2019) Surveillance to Track
Progress Toward Polio Eradication — Worldwide, 2017–2018 Weekly / April 5,
2019 / 68(13);312–318
36
Ver 1.0
S19_1220

A Fuller Picture of Vaccination - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fuller Picture of Vaccination - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Below in black text are the comments and views of two retired medics on vaccines, which I

What are the differences between the 3 Vaccines?

The Oxford-Astrazenica vaccine (UK)works like a traditional inoculation where a spike

6. The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated

Does it prevent people becoming affected by the disease?

Does it prevent people getting a severe form of the disease?

Does it prevent people passing on the disease?

EFFICIENCY & COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Can it easily be distributed / administered anywhere around the world?

How much does it cost?

Is it contra-indicated in certain groups of people?

Could side-effects emerge later?

References from Myself

2. Regarding: Regulation 345 of the Human Medicine Regulations transposes into UK

Nature of the consultation

High-level nature of the proposals

Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products

Proposed amendments in relation to temporary authorisation

10. Regarding: As mentioned above, a COVID-19 vaccine would only be authorised in

Civil liability and immunity

Who is protected from liability

13. Regarding the following statements:

Extent of the protection

When the protection is lost

16. Regarding: However, the advantage of a ‘reasonable’ pharmaceutical company in this

Vaccinators who are not registered healthcare professionals

Proposed expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations

25. Regarding: Currently there is a prohibition on promoting an unlicensed medicine to

Current Issues Around Vaccines Of Which The Public Are Unaware

4. Formaldehyde – case report of a 48-year-old male who developed explosive dermatitis

10. Major Flaws in papers stating that vaccines are safe:

b) Significant 4-8 fold increase in incidence of Guillain-Barre syndrome in

e) Deaths of 600 children were under investigation in the Philippines in

f) Significantly increased incidence of symptoms (syncope, dizziness,

g) 49/88 women (55%) showed symptoms of POTS after HPV vaccination –

b) Principle 9, of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, i.e. “is the duty of

19. Some quotes in the literature worth noting:

You might also like