Hi everyone,
Just a final reminder to all to complete the Government consultation to amend the medical regulations before midnight tonight:
https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f
I've copied some responses for you to edit/use:
1. Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products
Vaccines take years to be developed and licensed for good reason. Any long term effects of the vaccine will not be known.
Even licensed vaccines have been known to cause major harm (Swine flu vaccines causing narcolepsy) and compensation had to be paid out those affected.
The risk/benefit is far too high to give temporary authorization.
2. Civil liability and immunity
The long term effects of any fast tracked vaccine will not be known, so people will not be aware of the full extent of the risks.
You state it isn’t fair to expect the pharmaceutical company to accept liability. Neither is it fair to expect people to unwittingly endanger their health. No company should be exempt from liability.
To absolve the pharmaceutical companies of some of their liabilities will create a moral hazard.
The vaccine damage payment scheme shows that vaccines are proven to cause damage in people
https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment
The liability protections given to vaccine manufacturers must be rescinded if they want to gain any level of trust that their vaccines are seen to be safe.
3. Expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
This is a dilution of responsibility and another safety breach.
If the vaccine is fast tracked and unlicensed, it is surely at more risk of causing an adverse reaction in individuals, especially when looking at the statistics of who suffers the more extreme effects of the virus – only a fraction of less than 1% and it’s usually those with co-morbidities and/or of old age.
Anyone administering this must have the knowledge and skills, and be in the correct environment to deal with the most adverse possible side effects immediately.
This is tantamount to allowing members of the public to murder or cause injury to other members of the public without any consequence.
4. Vaccine promotion
A vaccine where the long term effects are unknown and is unlicensed, be promoted as a positive health choice?
Assuming there will be promotion of the benefits of this vaccine, there is also the responsibility of equal advertising of the unknown risks, both short and long term.
INFORMED CONSENT is paramount.
Make the vaccine insert easily accessible
Promote risks (including the fact that the full risks are unknown) with equal weighting.
There is a flu vaccine and people still get the flu and people also get ill from the shedding of the flu vaccine. Vaccine promotion would need to be balanced and show that there are risks to getting a vaccine.
5. Provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccines
There is no need to change the existing provisions, any excess vaccine can be sent back to the wholesaler to distribute. Providers can order sufficient supplies for their local area.
Done, if they think for even a fraction of a second I would bend to a fake mandatory ‘flu’ shot, this would involve much blood and it would not just be mine.... this sort of proposal is a step closer to civil war!
If they COME for us or block our bank accounts and credit cards...like they did for Assange?
Start using cash and withdrawing from fiat as best as you can.
I read that consultation closes at 11.59pm on 18th September so another day left.
Done. Many thanks for showing your responses which helped me fill in the form.
Also completed today, my points:
1. Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products
So far all the measures to 'fight' covid 19 are relying on highly questionable 'science' if not just pseudo (anti-bacterial hand gel and handwashing). Covid is already been managed by a host of emergency authorisations (diagnostic tests, masks...) and the this measure proposes to further add to the line of 'temporary' authorisations. At what point are the government going to evaluate their measures so far, assess the efficacy and do a cost benefit analysis of them?
2. Civil liability and immunity
The case for the vaccine hasn't been made. The claim is that it's for the 'fight' against covid but covid hasn't shown to be a sufficient enough threat to life to warrant vaccinating healthy human beings and providing all those responsible for the manufacture and roll out of the vaccine with immunity. I also took exception to the reference that the vaccine is to protect 'patients' but patients do not receive vaccines, and vaccine are rarely to my knowledge, if ever, administered as a 'treatment', so (1) the populace has been redefined as patients and (2) providing immunity to those responsible for harming healthy individuals, or those whose health issues are completely unrelated to covid makes no sense.
3. Expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
This presumes or dictates a demand for the the vaccine. Coercion. Once again I noted the reference to vaccinating 'patients' ('we're all patients now' apparently) and this measure seeks to divide the populace into patients and(vs) vaccination administrators.
4. Vaccine promotion
The very concept is bias and again coercive.
Will the risks of vaccines be part of the promotion? Will the cost benefit of the vaccine be part of the campaign?
Contravention of the principal of informed consent (should be unbias, non-coercive and free from fear of reprisal), particularly given the proposal to provide immunity to vaccine administrators in the event of harm. Violation of the autonomy of the individual.
5. Provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccines
No. Absolutely not.
I am unable to identify any other issue that is receiving this level of government intervention and by any means necessary and for an illness that has no symptoms (the symptoms lack credibility not to mention seem to have IP over people being a bit hot and clearing their throat), people are being told they are sick on the basis of a test and the same people being coerced into testing will be made 'patients' for the vaccine. Yet to be assured there is a case for any of the government covid measures let alone this vaccination programme and this particular measure.
I also addressed future 'health issues' because if people think this is about covid and this will end with the vaccine they might be spared by a vaccine. This is just the beginning and that goes for any perceived wins in the short to medium term.