WE hope to make this a regular feature. Please send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk marked ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible a county address eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them.
Dear Editor
This is a letter I wrote to MPs regarding the mandatory jabs for care workers.
Mandating Covid-19 injections for healthcare workers would be a breach of the fundamental principle of medical ethics that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and non-negotiable. It flies in the face of any basic sense of morality and would be a breach of international laws and humans rights conventions. Any MP supporting this attempt to remove the birthright of bodily autonomy by facing workers with an ultimatum of either submitting to a medical procedure they do not consent willingly to, or the loss of career/employment and income, are on a slippery slope that does not permit any compromise. If there is ever any restoration of our societal moral compass in the future, they will be found complicit in a crime against humanity.
The only conceivable justification for the measures which have been imposed might be that a given set of circumstances poses an existential threat to our society and culture. There has been no public debate about how this threshold could be reached. A brief acquaintance with ONS statistics for all-cause mortality over the past ten years does not commend a case for such an assertion, however defined. Despite the massaging of statistics in the direction of exaggeration there has been no dramatic change in the ten-year trend. The incidence of Covid-19 has not been based on a clinical diagnosis and has relied on a ‘test’ whose validity is highly controversial. There is no precedent for such a means of generating ‘case numbers’ in respiratory illnesses.
During the first few months of the pandemic it was claimed that there were no active treatments for Sars Co-V 2 and that the only available measures were physical distancing, quarantine and subsequently ‘lock-downs’ and masks, all contrary to previous pandemic measures. It was assumed axiomatically that the population at large had no natural immunity to this new virus. This turns out to be very far from true. The material risk of dying from Covid for most people is low, as stated repeatedly over the last 18 months, on camera, by Messrs Whitty, Vallance and Johnson. Covid infection for most is mild and does not require hospital treatment; most make a full recovery without intervention. Where the material risk of dying from the illness is low for most people and where existing prophylaxis and early treatments have not been made available there can be no case made in either logic, ethics or law for the draconian measures which have been taken without any reference to their very serious adverse consequences.
Ample data already exists to support use of established therapeutics with known safety track records to prevent and treat infection, reducing hospital admissions and deaths. These have not been made available and have been actively blocked in some cases. It is valid to assert that deliberate withholding of potentially beneficial treatment amounts to culpable homicide. The mainstream media have not questioned or investigated this and along with social media platforms, have actively worked to censor and label such information as ‘false’.
In 2020 the intention to develop a vaccine was announced despite acquired wisdom that mass vaccination during an epidemic carries its own risks. Later in 2020 two candidate types of ‘vaccine’ emerged. They are both novel entities without any precedent and with incomplete testing schedules owing to the short time before their planned use on a massive scale.
These did not initially meet the existing definitions of a ‘vaccine’. Covid-19 vaccines are experimental mRNA gene therapies. The definition was changed to allow their re-classification. The regulatory bodies allowed their use under an emergency licence thus removing many of the normal safeguards associated with a new therapy. It normally takes several years to bring a new vaccine to market. Fast tracking a vaccine by definition means there is no medium- to long-term safety data available. Unless there is a means of simulating the passage of time it is impossible to know yet if there are any serious long-term side effects. There has, therefore been neither rigorous pre-launch testing nor a properly monitored clinical trial. Yet the public are bombarded with constant, repeated ‘messaging’ from Ministers, MPs, all forms of media and the NHS, that these new vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. A large proportion of the British population has been entered into a clinical trial without being made aware of it. Recipients of the ‘vaccines’ have not been given a trial protocol and no system for rigorous follow-up of side effects or death has been put in place. This is, arguably, negligence of massive proportions. It is worthy of note that the manufacturers’ trial protocol excluded pregnant women, women of child-bearing age, persons recovered from Covid-19 and the very elderly.
There have already been serious concerns expressed by many leading experts in microbiology, virology and immunology which of course have been ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media (notably the BBC) and social media platforms. The last emergency vaccine during the swine flu outbreak was suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths. A recent freedom of information disclosure from Japan raises concerns over distribution of the nano-particles following injection. Recent Scandinavian studies suggest that the immune response stimulated by these vaccines is unique, with the characteristics of both a virally induced immune response and a response which occurs to bacterial infection. The Salk institute has found the spike protein component of the vaccine is itself a toxin. Concerns have been raised regarding the risk of the vaccines causing ‘immune escape’. Adverse event signals such as thrombocytopenia, reactivation of latent viruses and nano-particles reaching the ovaries are being seen. This should raise a level of concern which has been entirely eschewed by the Government, Sage, regulatory bodies, the pharmaceutical industry and their media collaborators. There is a high-volume of reporting of adverse reactions to the Yellow Card (UK) and VAERS (USA) reporting systems for the vaccines and these are estimated to capture only 1-10 per cent of cases.
The process of informed consent has been replaced by sloganeering such as ‘Grab a Jab’. This deliberate trivialisation disguises the very real concerns about the safety of these ‘vaccines’. The obligation of those offering any form of medical intervention has been waved aside, effectively permitting common assault which arises from there being inadequate information provided to people to be ‘informed’. If normal legality is being applied it is incumbent on the medical professional administering an injection to offer information on all aspects of the procedure which an ordinary person would be likely to want to know. Any novel chemical substance introduced into the body has the potential to cause harm. This is confirmed by the government website where it states a structured compensation programme is in place for those who are left severely damaged by the Covid-19 vaccinations. This is not being made clear in either the messaging from the NHS, advertising, MPs, commentators, via the written information sent out to patients pre-vaccination appointment or when people attend for vaccination.
The health and care sector was already experiencing a huge staffing issue prior to the era of Covid-19. Attrition due to retirement and ‘burn-out’ to name just two factors was high and not balanced by new recruits. The last 18 months has done nothing to reverse this trend and everything to accelerate it. If this parliament proceeds with ‘mandated injections’ or alternatively if they allow this to be done by ‘stealth’, i.e. turning a blind eye to employers bringing this in as a contractual obligation, the steady stream of staff currently leaving without new ones coming in to replace them might become a haemorrhage. Services would be more dangerously understaffed and under-skilled than ever, and the issue would likely become chronic. There may well be a domino effect. Services that are currently just about surviving would experience total collapse. Hospital waiting lists are predicted to reach 13million in the coming months.
If concerns about the future of the NHS have validity this is doubly true of care services. If the diverse workforce of care homes and domiciliary services are in any way diminished by the current coercive measures it can only result in a deterioration of an already very bad situation.
No government or employer has the right to mandate medication or to coerce workers into accepting medication which their own judgement has led them to decline.
All unions, professional registration bodies and associations with any integrity should support their members by lobbying the Government to reverse this regulation that removes our human rights immediately.
Yours sincerely
Helen Wood
Occupational therapist
***
Dear Editor
I’M A 65-year-old businessman whose IT consultancy has been destroyed by the government’s pathetic and destructive response to the Covid problem. I am one of the 2.3million sole directors who received nothing at all from the government.
I have written to my MP, Tom Hunt, as I am incensed at the proposal for social apartheid which will be a by-product of the proposed health passports.
I’ve set a copy out below, which I hope it will inspire others to do the same.
Dear Mr Hunt,
I write to you as a constituent extremely perturbed by your Government’s proposal to enact legislation to bring about what is colloquially known as a ‘Health Passport’ which will be required in order to enter a nightclub (or as amended, any venue containing more than a certain number of people).
This legislation is the thin end of a very fat and very long wedge. We all know from experience that once the principle is established, scope creep will ensure that it is applied to more and more circumstances. Whilst the current proposal may be solely for nightclubs, it is only a matter of time before it is applied to pubs, clubs, shops etc. What this horrendous proposal will do is introduce to British society a form of health apartheid, where one group of people is set against another, where one group will have privileges that others do not. One group will be looked down on and vilified by another, and will be subjected to abuse and prejudice. I don’t recall such legislation ever being introduced before, and I am surprised that a supposed Conservative government can even think about it, much less propose to enact it. It can only be described as a totalitarian proposal, and it cannot be allowed in Britain. It is almost certainly illegal under the Equality Act.
In fact, it’s worth pointing out that no government has the right to violate the Unesco Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights 2005 Article 6 on consent to any preventive (injections) or even diagnostic (tests, masks) medical intervention. Why is your government pressing ahead with attempting to force the entire population to take these injections even if they don’t want to? As far as I can see, it also violates the Nuremburg Code which is encapsulated in international law.
Along with most of the population, I was vaccinated against the usual diseases as a child, and as any caring parent would I saw to it that my children were vaccinated against them too. It is a well-established fact that when one is vaccinated against, say, smallpox, one expects to be, and is, safe from that disease henceforth
(subject, in some cases, to a booster). The same applies to the vaccines we opt to take later in life for travel, for instance, such as Yellow Fever. We take those so that when we visit places where such diseases still exist, we will be protected and safe. We know that these vaccines are safe because they have been extensively trialled, sometimes for more than a decade, and because they are conspicuously effective.
All of these traditional vaccines comply with the Oxford Dictionary definition of a vaccine which is: ‘A substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease’.
The Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ does not come close to complying with that definition. This is because isn’t a vaccine at all, and never will be no matter how often people call it one. Furthermore, it is still in its trial phase, and will be until the middle of 2023. Data already shows an alarming number of deaths attributable to it, and an even more alarming number of injurious reactions. It has been given emergency use status on the grounds that no other treatment for C19 exists, when there is extensive evidence that that is not the case; other treatments which are safe and proven to be effective do exist, especially in the case of early intervention. In the case of the UK, at the last count and according to the government’s own figures, there have been more than 1,400 deaths and more than 800,000 adverse reactions. These horrendous figures are higher than the figures for all other vaccines put together for the last 31 years. There have been more than enough bad reactions to cause a withdrawal of these injections pending further investigation and trials. I know several injected people who have had adverse reactions who have not reported it, and it is a safe bet that the figure for injury is a gross under-reflection of the true picture. Not one person I have discussed this with has heard of the Yellow Card scheme, or knows how to report to it.
However, not only is the government pressing ahead with pushing the injections, it is encouraging children (who don’t need it) to have it, and it is, by enacting this proposed apartheid, coercing people into having the injection themselves, by threatening punishment and vilification in the form of social apartheid. I know of several people who have unwillingly had it simply because they want to be able to go on holiday and have been encouraged to think that they won’t be able to if they remain unjabbed.
It’s a travesty of basic human rights that people such as myself, who do not want this injection and believe it to be potentially harmful, should be coerced into having it, and, should we resist the mounting pressure, be punished, by law, for not having the injection. Even worse, there is now a situation where blame is being laid at the feet of the unjabbed for the continued spread of C19: patent nonsense.
It’s not as if there’s any point in having it, or in insisting that everyone in a particular place has to have been jabbed. The injection provides no protection against C19, nor does it stop one passing it on. In which case, what is the point of it? What is the point in enacting draconian, totalitarian legislation to enforce something which doesn’t work as advertised, and has a high potential for harm, up to and including death? A number of recent high-profile cases illustrate that point, such as Andrew Marr and Sajid Javid, both of whom contracted the virus after being jabbed.
I have often heard it asserted that the jab, if one subsequently contracts C19, lessens the symptoms and renders it less harmful. I have never seen and am unable to find any data or peer-reviewed paper that gives any credence to that commonly held assertion. Further, the data coming out of Israel belies it, suggesting that the jabbed are as likely to catch C19 as those who remain unjabbed.
When this comes to be voted on in Parliament, I trust that you will oppose it, and I look forward to receiving your confirmation of that. Please don’t send me an ‘inverted pyramid of piffle’ from Central Office or the Cabinet Office; it will not advance the discussion one iota, nor will it allay my fears or counter the impression that those we have elected to represent us are not doing their job.
Yours sincerely,
Laurie Brown
