Before 1980
Roughly through to 1980, vaccines were public goods. They were mostly made by national bodies who were publicly funded, although pharmaceutical companies were dipping their toes in the water.
They were used for diseases that a national community thought were serious and worth getting vaccinated against – like polio.
Few national communities would have prioritized an investment in anything other than exceptional vaccines if the state of their health services were otherwise rudimentary and in need of developing.
Since 1980
As of 1980, vaccine development was picked up by pharmaceutical companies. It became a business venture rather than a public good. Companies cannot readily tolerate loss making, where for a country some losses can be tolerated, even desirable.
A business venture means sales on a greater than national scale.
There have been few diseases that a majority of any national population have believed really needed a vaccine. As a result, people have had to be persuaded in the case of measles, mumps and influenza.
There is acknowledgement at the highest level that the harms of influenza, measles and mumps have been hyped as part of strategies to persuade populations who might otherwise be unwilling to engage with vaccination campaigns.
There are vaccines that many willingly take if travelling to an affected area such as Yellow Fever or Hepatitis B.
Owing to general support for the idea of vaccinations, there are many vaccines that many of us can be persuaded to go along with from influenza to shingles.
There are others like rotavirus for children and HPV vaccines that are received ambivalently.
There is a gap between what is vaccine preventable and what individuals might opt to have for themselves and when they might think it reasonable to prioritize a vaccine option over others.
Trust in Institutions
The regulatory institutions that now manage vaccines have been managing drugs since 1950.
Since the 1980s, there is increasing evidence regulators look over company submissions rather than scrutinise them closely.
They do not check to see if all subjects in a trial exist.
Do not check to see if all data is transcribed from worksheets to final reports.
Do not check with subjects who have been designated as having adverse events or who have dropped out of trials as to what their experience has been.
Regulators tolerate a situation in which articles written in leading journals portray drug treatments as effective and safe when regulators have reviewed them as ineffective.
Do not register safety issues in a meaningful way.
Are a core part of a system that makes it impossible to get a treatment induced injury recognized.
Institutions and Vaccines
The significant harms that pertussis and swine flu vaccines in the 1970s caused opened up the prospect that new vaccines might cause damage on a great scale. Pharmaceutical companies stepped back from vaccine development.
Against a background of rising autism rates, for the pharmaceutical industry public concerns about thimerosal in vaccines raised a further prospect of escalating liabilities.
Governments stepped in to protect the pharmaceutical industry from having to shoulder the costs of compensation. Stepped in to support a market.
Since then, a series of vaccines have caused substantial harms. These include dengue, swine flu and HPV vaccines.
Investigating these has shown that companies do not run placebo-controlled trials.
The trials avail of a variety of maneuvers to hide harms.
A variety of methods have been used to enhance impressions of vaccine efficacy.
The current drive to develop vaccines has called unelected and unaccountable supra-national institutions such as GAVI into being.
The influence of bodies like GAVI is difficult for pretty well anyone to assess.
Vaccine policy has begun leaning toward supporting coercion. If a national community willingly embraced a vaccine, requiring others to vaccinate has a certain legitimacy. Forcing people to take a treatment that a significant proportion of the population feel ambivalent about is a different matter.
For the coercion to stem at least in part from bodies beyond a national community is a new development.
The emergence of pandemics potentially linked to climate change, and spread by transport and migration, has also introduced new elements into the equation that few of us have had time to assess.
Mothers and the Rest of Us
Other than in the case of older people getting Shingles, Influenza or Covid vaccines, many vaccines, if mandatory or semi-mandatory, bump into a very primitive force, a mother’s right to decide what is best for her child.
In some cases it faces her with demands to accept vaccinations in pregnancy, when many women opt to forego life-saving treatments if pregnant. The latest best-selling book, The Push, brings out how primal the issues are.
A religious belief, for instance in circumcision, can shape this parental force, as can a threat from a disease like polio.
It is unclear how mothers will respond to a body like GAVI intervening in matters like this in the case of conditions they view as relatively harmless or better managed by other means.
Proportionate
A core feature of healthcare is that a medicine should not produce disproportionate problems; a sleeping pill should not cause peripheral neuropathy or birth defects.
Some recent vaccines have produced disproportionate problems.
The trend toward vaccinating ever less life-threatening conditions increases the hazard.
In matters like this, individuals differ in their assessment of risks. Some will opt to take a chance and others not. Applying a rule that forces us all to behave the same way in the case of something, that unlike masks, comes with risks is likely to generate resistance.
Labelling a business problem (people who because they were pro-vaccine have taken or had their child take a vaccine and who had to deal with injuries as a consequence) as Anti-Vaxx looks like a use of the same playbook as blaming Anti-Fa for the Capitol Hill damage.
There is a companion post on RxISK about reporting vaccine effects
Prior posts have covered some of the issues here – see Medystopia and The Girl in the Striped Pajamas.
How soon will it be before these vaccination cards below become mandatory as they are already in Brazil Ot will citizens here start to be discriminated against if they decline either by social pressure or government messages which ramp up criticism against those who decline a vaccine
( Supreme Court: COVID-19 vaccination may be mandatory (there is a weasel worded definition of mandatory as opposed to compulsory)
18 Dec 2020 — Brazil’s Supreme Court has granted permission for local governments to introduce measures for compulsory vaccination against COVID-19.)
In Uk how long will it be before this bank card size card will be made ‘mandatory’ or a requirement in order to access certain services
Home Publications COVID 19 vaccination record card (It is strange that GPs would not hold this info below anyway as they are the only ones who can prescribe a vaccine. They have an obligation to obtain informed consent, as far as possible when vaccines have not been through rigorous trials Adverse effects are being played down via the media as just a sore arm, a bit of a fever…. GPs should be prescribing them on a basis of medical history and providing advice about all known adverse effects plus admitting the not knowns. Those thousands of people being given them at the huge sites being set up on racecourses etc are not being given given this information by the vaccinators’
GP surgeries are advising people not to call in or telephone the surgery for advice or discussion but instead are being referred to MHRA websites
Wednesday, 06 January 2021
Vaccine record card image
You will receive this vaccination record card after your first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Your health professional will use this card to record which vaccine you have received and when and notes the date on which you will get your second dose of vaccine. Please keep this card with you.
Additional information (Whose responsibility is it to refer people to this info – when obviously the advice is given here in a language which can’t be read by them)
If you need this information in a language that is not yet available here, you can use the Browsealoud facility on this website. This tool can translate and/or read aloud over 90 other languages. The full list of languages available is here and instructions for how to use the Browsealoud option are available to download here.
Details
Format
wallet card size
Target group
Those who have received their first dose (There is a series of these from different groups eg Care home residents)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-consent-form-and-letter-for-adults
The COVID-19 vaccination will reduce the chance of you suffering
from COVID-19 disease. Like all medicines, no vaccine is completely
effective and it takes a few weeks for your body to build up protection
from the vaccine. Some people may still get COVID-19 despite having
a vaccination, but this should lessen the severity of any infection. If you
are currently pregnant, planning pregnancy or breastfeeding please
read the detailed information at http://www.nhs.uk/covidvaccination
The vaccine cannot give you COVID-19 infection, and two doses will
reduce your chance of becoming seriously ill. You will still need to
follow the guidance in your workplace, including wearing the correct
personal protection equipment and taking part in any screening
programmes. Like all medicines, vaccines can cause side effects.
Most of these are mild and short-term, and not everyone gets them.
Please read the product information for more details on the
vaccine and possible side effects by searching Coronavirus
Yellow Card. You can also report suspected side effects on
the same website or by downloading the Yellow Card app.
Visit coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk
If, after discussion, you decide that you do not want to have the vaccine, it would be helpful if you would give the reasons for this
below/on the back of this form (and return to the provider).
note two doses of the vaccine are be required.
Please confirm your consent by returning the attached form to a member of staff.
By consenting you will be playing your part in reducing your risk of catching and spreading COVID-19.
Best wishes,
I can’t find any info leaflet or booklett anywhere . It is not good enough to just refer people to a website , especially those which aren’t trusted such as the MHRA,which requires a certain amount of computer savvy – where exactly is that information on potential adverse effects in a format we can all understand Or the info that the vaccines have unknown effects,
This is just some of the info we are supposed negotiate individually instead of being informed openly in way all can access.
YellowCard
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Existing Yellow Card App user?
Sign in or register
Vaccine Product Information
Product information on approved COVID-19 vaccines is available on this page.
This information is a copy of the product information for COVID-19 vaccines, which outlines the conditions under which the vaccine should be used and information on its known safety.
This information may be updated, if necessary.
The MHRA is unable to offer medical advice and so if a patient has any questions about a vaccine they should contact their doctor or pharmacist. Suspected adverse reactions to a vaccine can be reported to us on on this site as a Yellow Card.
My aunt was left with severe learning difficulties after having the MMR vaccine when she was a baby. While adverse effects this bad may be a rare occurrence, pharmaceutical companies and regulatory bodies should acknowledge the possible risks and inform the public. To read on the NHS website about how completely and utterly safe the vaccine is and how there’s no way in hell it can cause developmental problems, really strikes a nerve. It wasn’t safe for my aunt and I’m sure she wasn’t alone. Although in many cases vaccines are effective (particularly for treating diseases like hepatitis), we should still be made aware of the dangers. It should be up to us to individually judge whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks, not the drug companies whose survival relies on the vaccines turning a profit. We need to stop putting so much blind trust in healthcare system and remember that the pharmaceutical companies are no better than any other corporate big business; they sell you a product you don’t need by manipulating you into believe your life is lacking without it. They trigger our FOMO response and make our lives feel empty without it.
In a sense I guess doctors often act as advertisers too, convincing us that we’d be silly not to take antidepressants if we’re struggling with depression – ‘that’s what they’re there for after all.’ I mean it’s not like we’ve spent almost a decade in medical school so how would we know, right?
I feel like as a society we need to learn to trust ourselves again over the word of ‘healthcare professionals’, particularly in the age of COVID when they’re being held on a golden pedestal. While most of them probably do deserve the praise, this idealistic view towards anyone with a medical degree could be very damaging going forward. As a society, we need to become skeptical again, to learn to trust our own instincts and research and question the credibility of the healthcare industry. Only when enough people pressure pharma for the truth will they finally be forced into revealing it.
Ellie H-M The advice is as clear as mud. They are careful to You must read this before you
go for vaccination Let’s hope women are being given the information As to discussions with ‘your’ GP or nurse – well the quality of that depends on which GP or nurse as we know all too well.
The COVID-19 vaccines available in the UK have
been shown to be effective and to have a good safety
profile. The early COVID-19 vaccines do not contain
organisms that can multiply in the body, so they
cannot infect an unborn baby in the womb.
What does this mean for me?
Here are the key points you should consider:
• If you are pregnant you should not be vaccinated
unless you are at high risk – you can be vaccinated
after your pregnancy is over.
• If you have had the first dose and then become
pregnant you should delay the second dose until
after the pregnancy is over (unless you are at
high risk).
If you are pregnant but think you are at high risk, you
should discuss having or completing vaccination with
your doctor or nurse.
Although the vaccine has not been tested in
pregnancy, you may decide that the known risks from
COVID-19 are so clear that you wish to go ahead with
vaccination. There is no advice to avoid pregnancy
after COVID-19 vaccination.
If you are breastfeeding, you may decide to wait
until you have finished breastfeeding and then
have the vaccination.
2
3
Breastfeeding
There are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in
breastfeeding or on the breastfed infant. Despite this, COVID-19
vaccines are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant,
and the benefits of breastfeeding are well known. Because of
this, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
(JCVI) has recommended that the vaccine can be received while
breastfeeding. This is in line with recommendations in the USA
and from the World Health Organization.
Many vaccines can be given safely
in pregnancy so why am I being
advised against this vaccine?
The vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so until
more information is available, those who are pregnant should not
routinely have this vaccine. Non-clinical evidence is required before
any clinical studies in pregnancy can start, and before that, it is
usual to not recommend routine vaccination during pregnancy.
Evidence from non-clinical studies of the Pfizer BioNTech
vaccine has been received and reviewed by the Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). This evidence
was also reviewed by the World Health Organization and the
regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada and Europe and has
raised no concerns about safety in pregnancy.
Non-clinical studies of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have
raised no concerns. The JCVI has recognised that the potential
benefits of vaccination are particularly important for some
pregnant women. This includes those who are at very high risk
of catching the infection or those with clinical conditions that
put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from
COVID-19. In these circumstances, you should discuss vaccination
with your doctor or nurse, and you may feel that it is better to go
ahead and receive the protection from the vaccine.
I’m more scared of the vaccine than I am of Covid. After my experience of SSRIs I’ve become terrified of medications apart from drugs I’ve already taken and know ok with.
My personal opinion is that Covid is more dangerous in people with underlying health problems and the elderly rayher than younger people. I don’t come into this category so I’m not too worried about it myself plus Covid has a 99.9% survival rate which makes you less worried too.
I had an elderly relative die from Covid last week though so I know the elderly really are the most vulnerable. They need to take extrs care and people need to respect their safety when they are around them by keeping their distance, washing their hands and wear a mask if your near them.
Dear David,
I have been left badly damaged by long term prescribing of benzodiazepine drugs. I only took them as prescribed. Benzodiazepines where only ever trialled short term by the drug companies, just as with the current Covid vaccines. No research has been undertaken in the medium or long term as to future health implications for patients.
There is no way that i will accept the Covid vaccine jab from any of the drug companies.
Hancock the Health Minister is on the record in the Times Newspaper 12.1.2021 page 2 today stating that ” It remained unclear whether those who had been vaccinated could still pass on the virus.”
I do not trust Pharma or our totally inept Tory government as far as i could throw them.
Barry Haslam. Ex Chair of Oldham Tranx.
Once burned twice shy…
Of all the people who have been badly burned by SSRIs, or other types of medication, these are the people who might mostly be vaccine hesitant?
Any person coming at you with a needle is unlikely to take on board previous harms –
There is new guidance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists on SSRI Withdrawal.
It is called a leaflet.
The only people, to my knowledge, who have reacted to this ‘leaflet’ are people whose business it is to warn.
I am unaware of Leading Psychiatrists or Leading General Practitioner pushing the ‘leaflet’.
In fact, it has been palpably ignored in Senior Sectors..
Has it even been distributed and promoted to those who need to receive it?
The MHRA has taken a gamble with the second dose being put forward to 12 weeks against the wishes of Pfizer who did not trial at 12 weeks. Pfizer have made their views known.
Juan Gérvas
@JuanGrvas
#Covid19 #vaccination: What’s the evidence for extending the dosing interval? 12 weeks rather than in the previously recommended 3-4 weeks.
¿Pasar de un mes a tres meses en la segunda dosis de la #vacuna #covid19? Fundamento y opioniones varias, fundadas.
‘The US news site STAT referred to the move as “effectively turning [the UK] into a living laboratory.”10 It accused the UK of basing its new vaccination schedule “on small slices of evidence mined from ‘subsets of subsets’ of participants in clinical trials . . . and on general principles of vaccinology rather than on actual research into the specific vaccines being used.” It added, “If the efforts succeed, the world will have learnt a great deal. If they fail, the world will also have gained important information, though some fear it could come at a high cost.”
Covid-19 vaccination: What’s the evidence for extending the dosing interval?
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18
‘Let us invoke the Dunkirk spirit and bring on those little boats …
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n18/rapid-responses
Germany says does not intend to delay second COVID-19 vaccine shot
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-spahn/germany-says-does-not-intend-to-delay-second-covid-19-vaccine-shot-idUSKBN29B1FU
This is a huge ‘elephant in the room’ type moment https://davidhealy.org/the-hidden-gorilla/
did you see the Hidden Gorilla…
The graphic on this post is of The State of Vaccine Confidence 2015 report, a publication of The Vaccine Confidence Project, a ‘Big Brother’ type organisation which promotes vaccines and monitors dissent about vaccination, which it calls ‘vaccine hesitancy’. In 2019 the WHO declared ‘vaccine hesitancy’ as one of the top ten threats to global health.
Anthropologist Heidi Larson is the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Heidi Larson provided advice on the Royal Society’s and British Academy’s report: COVID-19 vaccine deployment: Behaviour, ethics, misinformation and policy strategies – a “rapid review of science of the behavioural aspects of vaccine uptake and misinformation…to assist in the understanding of COVID-19”.
This Royal Society and British Academy sponsored report supports the deployment of fast-tracked and still experimental ‘COVID-19’ vaccine products, and calls for dissent about these vaccine products to be suppressed, even calling for criminal prosecutions for ‘spreading misinformation’. But who defines what is ‘misinformation’?
The COVID-19 vaccine deployment report calls for oppressive action against people questioning COVID-19 vaccination policy, but fails to disclose that both the Royal Society and British Academy are seriously conflicted in this matter via their funding.
The Royal Society receives funding from AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of the Oxford vaccine, and also from GlaxoSmithKline, another vaccine manufacturer involved with COVID-19 vaccine products.
The British Academy receives funding from the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which is responsible for the Vaccine Taskforce (VTF) which was “set up to drive forward the development and production of a coronavirus vaccine as quickly as possible, bringing together government, academia and industry”.
These conflicts of interest should have been clearly disclosed on the COVID-19 vaccine deployment report, and acknowledged in media promotion for the report.
The Royal Society says “We are the independent scientific academy of the UK” and the British Academy says it is “an independent fellowship of world-leading scholars and researchers”, but this declared ‘independence’ is clearly compromised.
See my email challenging the Royal Society’s and British Academy’s failure to disclose their conflicts of interest via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/failure-to-disclose-conflicts-of-interest-covid-19.pdf
Great work Elizabeth I downloaded that, will look in on your site to see further work and any replies ! Fingers crossed they don’t take your site down.
BBC Razia Iqbal Interview with Professor Allyson Pollock Director of the Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ptcf
“If you look at the information sheet for the tests the government has been using – and they have spent billions of pounds on these tests – they say they are not to be used on healthy people with no symptoms, there not tests of infectious disease they are only to be used as a support for doctors who are making a clinical diagnosis. In other words, in people with symptoms.” It’s hugely unethical this experiment. It’s rolling out these that have never been validated for use in the community and used on healthy well people. And it’s spending billions of pounds on this project and it’s why it needs to stop.”
Professor Allyson Pollock BBC News interview with Rita Chakrabarty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHooBIP1GIM
“These tests – the public have been given misinformation – it is not a test which tells you whether you have infection or whether you’re infectious it simply tells you if you have bits of the RNA virus. Now in a place like Liverpool where the rates of infection are falling dramatically it’s very likely that quite a lot of the population will have evidence of old infections and that especially in children could result in them being isolated unnecessarily and harmfully. The second thing about this test is that not only is it not a test that can tell if you’re infectious or [about] infectiousness these tests have not been properly evaluated in community settings, this is a real worry: we do not know whether they work and what they tell us in community settings and the Govt has just spent £100 million for Liverpool buying something called Innova tests which explicitly says they should not be used in community settings.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5qjOpCBs7E
“A PCR test for the virus – all it does is it tells you whether you’ve got a bit of the RNA vrius but it doesn’t tell you whether you are currently infected whether you were past infected and mostly importantly it doesn’t tell you whether you are still infectious”
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.m4930
Allyson Pollock, professor of public health and co-director of Newcastle University Centre of Research Excellence in Regulatory Science, is the 2020 winner of The BMJ editors’ award for “speaking truth to power.” Pollock, who is known for her work against the privatisation of the NHS, has been an influential voice during the covid-19 pandemic, questioning the evidence behind many of the government’s policies, including rolling out mass asymptomatic testing and stopping contact tracing early on.
https://allysonpollock.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AP_2021_Pollock_ICSNextStepsConsultation.pdf
“No legislative changes are proposed to the purchaser-provider split. Whilst repeal of procurement rules under section 75 of the 2012 Act and removal of commissioning of NHS healthcare services (only) from the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 are welcome, the document is silent on safeguards against corruption and conflicts of interest.”
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler at PA Medical Freedom Press Conference 10/20/20 on unsafe epitopes in the vaccines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoeCB0MudgA
Dr Reiner Fuellmich is bringing a legal complaint to the European Medicins Agency re SARS – Cov2 vaccines 35 mins in
https://truthcomestolight.com/dr-reiner-fuellmich-interview-about-the-international-lawsuits-its-quite-clear-that-this-is-like-world-war-iii-and-probably-worse/
There are complaints this morning about people not turning up for their vaccinations – 45 was a number quoted but I didn’t catch if that was at one place or a general overall number. Much disgust aired about this as you can imagine – was a waste if the Pfizer vaccine was the one refused; bad manners to just not turn up; letting everyone else who’s patiently waiting for the jab etc. etc. As you may well guess, it was heavily hinted that these who hadn’t turned up were “just anti-vaxxers”. It continued until it came to light that you receive a TEXT message telling you when to go where and that’s it. No number to call if the date/time is inconvenient, therefore NOTHING that you can do if you want to gracefully refuse! Looks like another fine mess they’ve got us into!
They have changed their minds from previous advice stating there would be no compensation for Covid vaccs. Bearing in mind previous decades long avoidance of paying compensation to people harmed by prescribed drugs – we may not have the greatest confidence in this especially when the disgraceful Dept for Work and Pensions is involved
GOV.UK
Search on GOV.UK
Government to add COVID-19 to Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme
The government is taking this precautionary step in advance of a rollout of an authorised COVID-19 vaccine and in line with other immunisation programmes.
Published 3 December 2020
From:
Department of Health and Social Care
COVID-19 vaccines will only be deployed once they meet strict standards of safety, effectiveness and quality and are approved for use by the regulator
No safety concerns have been reported in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines authorised for use
Addition of COVID-19 a responsible step and standard process to further prepare for safe roll out
In advance of a rollout of an authorised COVID-19 vaccine and in line with other immunisation programmes, the government is taking the precautionary step to ensure that, in the very rare possibility where someone is severely disabled as a result of taking a COVID-19 vaccine, they can access financial assistance through the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (VDPS).
No safety concerns have been reported in vaccines authorised for use following rigorous clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people and extensive analysis of the vaccine’s safety, quality and effectiveness by experts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine is now the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorised for use in the UK, and the MHRA will keep safety under continual review.
Adding diseases to the VDPS is not new and numerous diseases have been added as successive governments have rolled out more immunisation programmes, such as HPV and Meningitis B. In response to the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, the previous government added swine flu to the VDPS on 10 October 2009.
Generally, only those who were administered vaccines as part of a childhood immunisation programme are covered under the VDPS. However, because COVID-19 vaccines will be rolled out to a large proportion of the adult population, the government will amend the eligibility requirements, ensuring adults who are administered a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK or Isle of Man, or as part of an armed forces medical treatment, will be covered by the scheme too.
This is not a novel approach. Currently, polio, rubella, meningococcal group C, HPV and meningococcal group W (up to age 26) are also exempt from the age requirement, as these vaccines were primarily offered to adults.
Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said:
We are extremely confident in the effectiveness and safety of our immunisation programmes. We will not be rolling out a COVID-19 vaccine unless it has met robust standards of safety, effectiveness and quality and authorised for use by the medicines regulator, the MHRA.
The UK has one of the most comprehensive immunisation programmes in the world, and sensible routine precautions such as these form a huge part of our global-leading standards in safety.
The VDPS is a safety net to help ease the burden on individuals who have in extremely rare circumstances experienced harm due to receiving a government-recommended vaccine. It is not a compensation scheme. Rather, it provides a one-off, tax-free lump sum – currently £120,000 – for those suffering a severe disability as a result of a vaccine against a disease listed under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.
Background information
Currently, in order to qualify for the payment, it must be accepted, on the balance of probability, that there is a causal link between the vaccine and the claimed disability and that the resulting disability amounts to severe (ie at least 60%) disablement.
Claims are assessed and paid where successful by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The New York Times recently published an article titled: ‘Vaccines are safe, no matter what Robert Kennedy Jr. says’.
This is an opinion piece by Robert Kennedy Jr.’s niece Dr Kerry Kennedy Meltzer.
Kerry Kennedy Melzer admits “Being a doctor does not make me a vaccine expert…”, but she was provided with a soapbox to promote her views, while Robert Kennedy Jr. was denied a right of reply.
I’ve written an email to the Editor of the New York Times on this matter, including reference to the current rushed rollout of coronavirus vaccine products, and to the influence of Bill Gates, including his sabotaging of the mooted US Vaccine Safety Commission, which is interesting to consider now in light of the increasing number of coronavirus vaccine products racing to market…
My email to the NYT Editor is accessible via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/bill-gates-and-kerry-kennedy-meltzer-campaigning-against-consideration-of-vaccine-safety.pdf
Juan Gérvas
@JuanGrvas
9 min
Empezar #vacuna #covid19 @Pfizer
a ancianos en asilos es una barbaridad. En el ensayo clínico, con 43.000 personas sólo hubo 5 de 85 y más años
The Google Translate : –
Juan Gérvas
@JuanGrvas
·
39m
Start #vaccine # covid19 @Pfizer old people in nursing homes is outrageous.
In the clinical trial there were only 5 people aged 85 and over
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
It is not possible to draw conclusions about efficacy in the small population ≥75 years.”
http://www.navarra.es/NR/rdonlyres/6EAA15A8-75D9-4C43-B218-98D590FC247D/467922/FichavacunaPfizer_def.pdf
Erika Cadenas
@ErikaBadajoz
Mr. @GFVara says that they have not vaccinated more out of prudence, to see if there were adverse effects or reactions. Is this man saying that the elderly have been used as guinea pigs in the residences? He must resign. Him and @jvergelesb … for negligent.
‘In the clinical trial, with 43,000 people there were only 5 aged 85 and over’ …
It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said.
Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world.
A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated.2 “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement.3
Except, it hadn’t.
Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
Ferguson H1N1 case study — Patrick Vallance — GlaxoSmithKline
At this point, I would like to go back in time to 2009 and Ferguson/Imperial College’s analysis of swine flu, H1N1: they claimed this virus would take the lives of 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, 457 people died from the virus.
In response to the threat of swine flu, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed the Pandemrix vaccine, with disastrous consequences. An alleged sixty patients who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine were allocated £60 million in compensation by the UK Government. Most of the victims were children. As one report has it: “It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy in about one in 16,000 people, and many more are expected to come forward with the symptoms.”
A later British Medical Journal (BMJ) report deemed that GSK and health authorities had failed to warn the public of the vaccine’s alarming “safety signal”.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown
Shortly after Slaoui joined the Warp Speed effort, he stepped down from his role on Moderna’s board of directors in order to avoid any conflict of interest from the funds the federal government pumped into Moderna’s research effort. He also sold his shares in the Massachusetts-based company. However, despite some criticism he received, Slaoui retained his GSK stock despite the fact that company was tied to some federally-supported vaccine programs. After spending 30 years at GSK, he said the stake he held in the company was part of his retirement, CNBC noted.
https://www.biospace.com/article/moncef-slaoui-resigns-from-operation-warp-speed/
Up and Down – the Ladder …
Maryanne Demasi, PhD @MaryanneDemasi
·
Norwegian drug agency: 23 people have died shortly after receiving the first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine. So far, autopsies suggest the harms of mRNA vaccines (fever, nausea, diarrhoea) “contributed” to at least 13 of the fatal outcomes in the frail patients.
Juan Gérvas @JuanGrvas
Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n149 (Published 15 January 2021)Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n149
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149
Asked if any deaths had occurred in UK patients after vaccination, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said that details of all suspected reactions reported in association with approved covid-19 vaccines would be published along with its assessment of the data on a regular basis in the future. Based on the available published reports from the clinical trials, the MHRA said it did not currently anticipate any specific safety concerns.
In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.
Juan Gérvas @JuanGrvas
·
Norway. 23 people had died after receiving their first dose of the #covid #vaccine. 13 have been autopsied, common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people. Noruega. OJO #vacuna #covid19 en ancianos, peligro.
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-over-80
World
Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80
By Lars Erik Taraldsen and Naomi Kresge
15 January 2021, 08:12 GMT
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-over-80
Norway said Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority as countries assess the real-world side effects of the first shots to gain approval. In
the U.K., which has carried out more immunizations per capita than anywhere else in Europe, authorities will assess safety data and plan to publish details of suspected reactions “on a regular basis,” the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency said, without giving a date.
Juan Gérvas @JuanGrvas
·
Chinese health experts called on Norway and other countries to suspend the use of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, especially among elderly people. Expertos chinos aconsejan el abandono de las #vacunas #covid19 @Pfizer @moderna_tx especialmente en ancianos
https://globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212915.shtml
CHINA / SOCIETY
Chinese health experts call to suspend Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine for elderly after Norwegian deaths
By Zhang HuiPublished: Jan 15, 2021 01:58 PM
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212915.shtml
Chinese health experts called on Norway and other countries to suspend the use of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines produced by companies such as Pfizer, especially among elderly people, due to the vaccines’ safety uncertainties following the deaths of 23 elderly Norwegian people who received the vaccine.
The new mRNA vaccine was developed in haste and had never been used on a large scale for the prevention of infectious disease, and its safety had not been confirmed for large-scale use in humans, a Chinese immunologist said.
The death incidents in Norway also proved that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ efficacy was not as good as expected, experts said.
As of Thursday, Norway has reported 23 deaths in connection with vaccination.
Intended for healthcare professionals
Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n149 (Published 15 January 2021)
Ingrid Torjesen
Author affiliations London
Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.
“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”
The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.
“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said. “We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease,” he emphasised. “We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.” This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.
More than 20 000 doses of the vaccine have been administered over the past few weeks in Norway and around 400 deaths normally occur among care home residents every week.
The Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is also investigating 10 deaths shortly after covid-19 vaccination.1
Asked if any deaths had occurred in UK patients after vaccination, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said that details of all suspected reactions reported in association with approved covid-19 vaccines would be published along with its assessment of the data on a regular basis in the future. Based on the available published reports from the clinical trials, the MHRA said it did not currently anticipate any specific safety concerns.
In a statement, Pfizer said, “Pfizer and BioNTech are aware of reported deaths following administration of BNT162b2. We are working with NOMA to gather all the relevant information.
“Norwegian authorities have prioritised the immunisation of residents in nursing homes, most of whom are very elderly with underlying medical conditions and some of whom are terminally ill. NOMA confirm the number of incidents so far is not alarming, and in line with expectations. All reported deaths will be thoroughly evaluated by NOMA to determine if these incidents are related to the vaccine. The Norwegian government will also consider adjusting their vaccination instructions to take the patients’ health into more consideration.
“Our immediate thoughts are with the bereaved families.”
Reported today in Australia…
New South Wales residents who refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine may be blocked from entering select venues under a radical plan flagged by the premier.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian is purportedly considering the plan that would require patrons to prove their vaccination status before entering venues including cafes, restaurants and pubs which can be considered “high-risk settings”.
Government-run venues including police and fire stations or Service NSW shopfronts could also be included under the plan, while non-government venues would be encouraged to join.
“Clearly, opportunities to travel overseas or opportunities to enter certain workplaces or venues might be enhanced if you have the vaccine,” she told The Daily Telegraph.
“Some of those decisions could be inspired by the government, (and) some of those decisions might be inspired by the organisation themselves.”
Berejiklian said the government would have further discussions in the coming weeks.“The more people that are vaccinated, the greater likelihood we can have a return to normality as we know it,” she told 2GB on Monday morning.
I don’t ever like to force people to do anything but there should be an incentive system.”
See: Anti-vaxxers could be refused entry to NSW venues under radical plan:
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/anti-vaxxers-could-be-refused-entry-to-nsw-venues-under-radical-plan-c-1978220
orway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination (the no has gone up to 29 ( There are some few reports from other countries being published in online news papers eg Portugal, Switzerland There are ongoing contributions re the vaccines in thebmj . Everyone can make a comment, free to read, and respond (thebmj call responses r.r s ie rapid responses,only name and email necessary , but address need not be shown with comment , no credentials or qualifications needed
Dear Editor,
Thanks for the quick evidence based information for the rest of the world to consider in their vaccination of the elderly.
Thanks,
Dr Sivalingam SP
Competing interests: No competing interests
17 January 2021
Suppiah Paramalingam Sivalingam
Senior Research Fellow
LEE KON CHIAN SCHOOLOF MEDICINE, 11 Mandalay Road, Singapore
Re: Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
Dear Editor
The deaths of 23 elderly people shortly after they received the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine is very sad and concerning. It is a common fact that many elderly frail people, often with underlying conditions, frequently react badly to medication.
The pending investigation must establish a cause of death for each of them and whether the vaccine caused adverse reactions.
We already know of at least nine cases of adverse reaction to this vaccine to date. Seven in the US, Bell’s Palsy, anaphylaxis and some other issue and two cases in UK of anaphylaxis. It is thought that an ingredient, Polyethylene Glycol is one cause. Other possibilities include the nanoparticles in the vaccine formulation.
If it is subsequently proven that the vaccine was a contributory factor in these tragic cases, the EMA, MHRA and FDA and other regulators, must urgently review its safety and if necessary revoke the temporary approval to allow further investigations as to the cause.
Competing interests: No competing interests
16 January 2021
Richard de Clare
Ventriloquist
Chipping Sodbury
Re: Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
Dear Editor,
The Norwegian Medicines Agency is focusing attention on the elderly and frail regarding the reason for the many tragic deaths of newly vaccinated care home residents.
The authorities are omitting the most relevant information – that the clinical trials for safety of the Pfizer vaccine (and other Covid 19 vaccines) are only performed on healthy individuals. Nor do they inform that the clinical trials for safety stipulate a list of “exclusion criteria” (individuals who are not included in the safety trials).
This shortened list is of individuals with conditions which were excluded from the safety trials:
Those with psychiatric conditions, allergies, high blood pressure, diabetes 1, respiratory conditions, heart conditions, asthma, smokers, autoimmune conditions, those who take anticoagulants, corticosteroids, long term medicines, and many more…
There is therefore no documentation for safety issues regarding vaccination of anyone of any age with these conditions.
It is blatantly obvious that residents in care homes should never have been on top of the priority list for vaccination, yet unbelievably this was the case.
Only now, after all the tragic deaths amongst care home residents, are the Norwegian health authorities only stating that the very old and those with frail health should be medically evaluated with respect to vaccination.
The information is being omitted that in addition to old age and frail health there is an extremely long list of other conditions which may be contraindicated for people of all ages regarding vaccination.
It may well be questioned whether the Norwegian health authorities should be held accountable for contributing towards the many tragic deaths.
Competing interests: No competing interests
16 January 2021
Sandy Lunoe
Retired pharmacist
Norway
Re: Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination
Dear Editor
This is reminiscent of the issue that came up in the Italian media with the influenza vaccine in 2014, with newspapaers updating us daily with “suspicious deaths” (morti sospette) after the flu jab. This led the Italian regulatory agency to suspend the marketing of a vaccine. The panic lasted a week, until the European Medicine Agency concluded that there was no causal link. This story, and the responsibility of the media in the health scare, has been the subject of some papers (1, 2).
Of course, vaccine safety should be carefully monitored and safety issues should not be discusset secretly within the scientific community. However, articles in the news often do not warn the reader that careful statistical analysis is needed to confirm whether deaths are associated with the vaccine or if they represent the normal rate in the specific population (3). In a world where transparency is important, describing the limitations of the reports to avoid misinterpretation of data should be an ethic responsibility of journalists.
Fierce Pharma’s JPM 2021 coverage in one place Masses of interesting info on this free to access site.
Sinopharm claims COVID-19 vaccine safe in kids aged 3 and up
by Nick Paul Taylor | Jan 15, 2021 9:05am
No details about the side effect profile beyond the claim a Sinopharm subsidiary vaccine is safe and available. (SW1994 / Pixabay)
A clinical trial has found a COVID-19 vaccine in development at a Sinopharm subsidiary to be safe in children aged three to 17 years, according to Chinese state media.
COVID-19 vaccine developers initially focused their clinical trials on adults. Pfizer and Moderna went on to study their candidates in children after showing safety in adults, but even then those trials are only enrolling kids aged 12 years and up. In contrast, China National Biotec Group (CNBG), a subsidiary of Sinopharm, has data on the use of one of its vaccines in kids as young as three years.
Xinhua, China’s official state-run press agency, shared details of the study in an article. Summarizing the Xinhua article, Reuters reported the vaccine appears safe in children and shared a quote from CNBG Chairman Yang Xiaoming.
Xiaoming told Xinhua: “It should be noted that for three to five-year-old children, because their immune system is still developing, they must be carefully and closely monitored during vaccination.”
There is some doubt about the vaccine tested in the pediatric trial. CNBG has two COVID-19 vaccines in late-phase development. Based on the Xinhua report, Reuters is unsure which of the jabs Xiaoming was discussing. However, researchers have previously disclosed a phase 2 clinical trial of the CNBG vaccine BBIBP-CorV in children aged three to 17 years old, the same age range targeted in the study covered by the Xinhua report, suggesting that may be the candidate discussed by Xiaoming.
A clearer picture of what the CNBG clinical trial means for the prospects of COVID-19 vaccines in young children will only become clear if the data are shared. As it stands, no details about the side effect profile beyond the claim the vaccine is safe and available.
Today I’ve forwarded an email to Professor Allen Cheng, one of the major influencers on taxpayer-funded vaccination policy in Australia.
In my email I challenge the implementation of mass coronavirus vaccination in Australia, a medical intervention which politicians are threatening to coerce people to accept.
This matter is relevant to people around the world, with everyone under threat of this poorly thought through vaccination response.
Please feel free to share with others, my email is accessible via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/coercive-coronavirus-vaccination-in-australia.pdf
I’m pursuing further the serious matter of conflicts of interest in taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, and have recently written to Professor John Shine, President of the Australian Academy of Science, also including my recent email to Professor Allen Cheng.
Basically I’m calling out ‘the science’, and challenging the ‘anti-vaxxer’ labelling.
People questioning vaccination policy and practice have to demand to be taken seriously, this area is out of control. We must have a review of the schedule, and a moratorium on the addition of any further vaccine products, e.g. coronavirus vaccines. We have to walk this back and illuminate where this push for global coronavirus vaccination came from…i.e. Bill Gates…
My email to Professor Shine is accessible via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/anti-vaxxers-and-the-science.pdf
Re: Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination Ingrid Torjesen. 372:doi 10.1136/bmj.n149
Dear Editor
The MHRA’s ambiguous response to publish all suspected adverse reactions to Covid vaccines in the “future” is surely a matter of grave concern given the recent reports of deaths in Norwegian care home residents following administration of a Covid vaccine.
Surely the MHRA would seek to reassure the public in the UK that a similar tragedy is not occurring here by publishing the ADR reports with some urgency?
Why has the MHRA not followed the example set by the equivalent body in Norway by publishing weekly reports of adverse reactions to Covid vaccine? Why, even now, is there no concrete undertaking to provide full transparency re adverse reaction reports to the public on a weekly basis?
“At the highest political level the public has been promised full transparency of the reported ADRs of the covid-19 vaccines. The Norwegian Medicines Agency will publish weekly reports.” (1)
Perhaps it’s worth remembering that the post marketing surveillance systems in Norway, Finland, Sweden, France and Portugal previously led the way in the early reporting of cases of narcolepsy following administration of the Pandemrix vaccine in 2010.(2) Following on from those early reports, the full scale of the problem eventually became apparent with many young people now receiving compensation through the courts in respect of their narcolepsy and cataplexy.
It will take time to investigate the underlying and contributory factors involved in the deaths of the Norwegian care home residents but in the meantime should we not be asking questions over the apparent reticence of our MHRA to provide a real time tally of the Covid vaccine adverse reaction reports received in the UK on a weekly basis?
(1) https://legemiddelverket.no/english/covid-19-and-medicines/vaccines-agai…
(2) https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/ese.15.38.19670-en?craw…
Competing interests: No competing interests
19 January 2021
Wendy E Stephen
Retired nurse
Stonehaven, Scotland
Respond to this article
Read all responses to this article
Heroes and Villains. Given the controversial history of companies like Astra Zeneca and Pfizer, is it any wonder that Vaccine hesitancy/skepticism is rife?
This excellent article highlights a number of the concerns.
The BBC recently referred to the MHRA as fiercely independent, despite the irrefutable fact that they are funded by Big Pharma on their drugs regulatory side. This problem is referred to as Regulatory Capture.
It is sad that the mainstream media do not take a more balanced view of the complex issues. They tend to refer to all vaccine skepticism as baseless conspiracy theory.