Letter template for GPs, pharmacists and other vaccine providers re: informed consent

*** URGENT CALL TO ACTION*** Please copy and paste the below template and email it to your local doctors' surgeries and pharmacists. If you do not wish to use your real name, simply set up a new email account under a pseudonym. Together, we can make a huge difference in exposing this extraordinarily dangerous experiment. Thank you for your help.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to you regarding the current Covid booster programme, which offers a new and reformulated Covid vaccine to all over-50s, and all clinically vulnerable under-50s – a total of around 26 million people.

The vaccine in question has not been tested on any human beings (please see reference 1 at the footer of this letter).

I am contacting you today because I am deeply concerned about this situation, and that the often highly vulnerable people the injection is targeted at – many of them elderly and suffering with cognitive decline, many others with learning difficulties or struggles with literacy – are not being adequately safeguarded where it comes to ensuring their consent to medical treatments is fully informed.

As you will know, medicine in the United Kingdom is governed by the Montgomery ruling (2), which states that, for patient consent to be both ethically and legally valid, the patient must in advance be informed of all “material risks” of a treatment. ‘Material risks’ are defined by this ruling as “any risks to which a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance”, and the "significance" of a risk is not defined by how common it is. Rare risks are also extremely significant to those that suffer them, and therefore, all risks (not just the more common) must be fully disclosed in advance.

Regrettably, this is not reliably happening with the Covid vaccinations, where patients are generally not informed in advance of the possible risks of such serious disorders as myocarditis and pericarditis, despite the UK Government warning on its website of these possible adverse outcomes (3).

Astonishingly, despite myocarditis being an extremely serious condition that proves fatal within five years of diagnosis to around 50% of patients (4), and despite the fact incidences of this condition have soared in frequency since the introduction of the Covid vaccinations (5), the UK’s National Health Service has removed all mention of the condition from its website (6), information that was previously there. There is no valid or legitimate explanation for this, but it does strongly indicate that the NHS is actively attempting to suppress informed patient consent, which is a very grave matter indeed.

There is a myriad of further risks to the first generation of Covid vaccines, which remain the subject of ongoing study, and at the present time, there have been enough reports to the Yellow Card Scheme in this country, and other medical watchdogs in other countries, to have warranted the recall from market similar products in the past (7).

This situation is clearly deeply concerning and is dramatically exacerbated by the introduction of a second generation of “reformulated” vaccines, about to be offered to the UK public, which have no verifying human safety data to support their usage at all (1).

To be clear, these vaccines have been developed with such unprecedented rapidity, that they have not been tested on a single human being, meaning the impending nationwide inoculation campaign, is itself the trial.

Clearly, the tenets of the Montgomery ruling make it your obligation to fully inform patients of these facts, and that they are subjecting themselves to medical experimentation. To be derelict in this duty would fall foul of multiple medical ethics and human rights laws, including the Nuremberg Code (8), which clearly stipulates that fully informed patient consent prior to medical experimentation is critical.

The lack of safety data on these new injections means that it is not possible for you to fulfil your obligations on informed consent in any other way. You cannot warn patients of “all material risks” of the treatment, because without clinical safety trials on human beings, these are not known. Therefore, this must be made clear to patients – that you do not know the risks of the new vaccines, and nor does any other individual or body. Only when this is made abundantly clear to patients can they make the informed choice to consent to the vaccine.

To give some context on what the risks are likely to be, you are obliged to inform them of documented adverse effects of the first generation of Covid vaccines, including cardiac disorders as detailed earlier in this correspondence. There are a wide range of other formally documented risks to these injections, and I invite you to study both the reference section of this letter and the resources available at the information site ‘Informed Consent Matters’ (www.informedconsentmatters.co.uk) to further familiarise yourself with these.

Please know that I care very deeply about vulnerable people and that I am extremely invested in ensuring that neither they, nor any other individuals, are misled, deceived, or manipulated into action that is not in their interests.

I look forward to your prompt response detailing precisely what steps you and your organisation will be taking to fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to ensure patient submission to Covid vaccination is given with free, voluntary, and fully informed consent.

If I do not receive a response, I will only be able to interpret this as clear confirmation that your organisation does not intend to adhere to the principles of informed consent and is therefore thoroughly derelict in both your ethical and legal obligations. This may have a wide variety of far-reaching future consequences.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

References:

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new-covid-boosters-data-tests-people-rcna45387

2. https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/montgomery-and-informed-consent

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna/information-for-uk-recipients-on-covid-19-vaccine-moderna?fbclid=IwAR1KKvwhb1g7Ckq3y-5IKpTjhDNueeHvPcuDTyZF9Sz_DEbyeflhybDa_KI#what-you-need-to-know-before-you-are-given-spikevax

4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/#:~:text=Immediate%20complications%20of%20myocarditis%20include,in%20the%20last%2030%20years.

5. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1

6. https://www.nhs.uk/search/results?q=myocarditis&page=0

7. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-pharmacovigilance-report/

8. https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

Unknown hazards await with the imminent media push for the new and reformulated Covid booster

As we approach September, when a new and reformulated "booster dose" of the Covid vaccine will be made available, we can expect to see a steady increase in the same kinds of alarmist news stories aggressively promoting vaccination that became so commonplace last year.

This has already begun, with The Daily Mail sensationally reporting today that: "More than a THIRD of over-50s still haven't had last year's booster jab... as health chiefs gear up for next month's roll-out of top-up jabs", whilst The Guardian is using that time-honoured sales technique of boosting demand: alleging scarcity, "Booster programme to start on 5 September as reports say NHS may not have enough stock of new jab," warns The Guardian.

As we have come to expect from the mainstream press, very little information is being given in the way of full and objective facts regarding this vaccine - what's in it, what the safety data says, what the risks are - with far more focus put upon alarmist numbers regarding "positive cases", and general attempts to whip up anxiety about winter illness - which, the press suggests, can only be countered by yet more vaccination. This new booster will be the fourth, fifth, or even sixth dose for some.

This uncritical insistence on endless vaccination persists, despite the fact that an explosive new report prepared by the World Council for Health (WCH) has confirmed that data on adverse drug reactions from the Covid-19 vaccines exist in an amount sufficient for the recall of similar products in the past.

The WCH drew this conclusion through collating data from the WHO's VigiAccess, the CDC's VAERS, EudraVigilance, and UK Yellow Card Scheme, in order to determine whether the COVID-19 vaccines are safe. On June 11, 2022, the WCH announced its results. The WCH found that the databases revealed more than 40,000 deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and called for an immediate recall of those vaccines.

This is an outcome that many eminent vaccine authorities warned of two years ago, whilst the vaccines were still in development. Top scientist and vaccinologist, Dr. Peter Hotez, expressed deep reservations about the extraordinary "fast-tracking" of the first generation of Covid vaccines - and that this would almost certainly lead to undesirable outcomes.

Despite this caution - and despite the fact the data is now in to confirm these concerns as correct - few clinicians are being given a platform to warn of the risks of the even more accelerated nature of the reformulated booster, risks dramatically magnified by the fact that regulators have not required clinical trial data before authorising the booster for use.

It is clear, therefore, that a potentially very dangerous experiment is going to be underway this autumn, with the danger exponentially increased by the fact the Covid booster will be administered at the same time as the 'flu vaccine. There is no data at all to determine that this is safe.

Will patients be advised of these issues in advance, to ensure their consent is fully informed, and therefore legally and ethically valid? Extrapolating from the egregious flouting of informed consent criteria all throughout the Covid pandemic, this seems extremely unlikely.

That is why it is vital that we who value the principles of informed consent and ethical medicine continue to counter incomplete and inadequate information from the government and its proxies, with balanced and comprehensive, credible information of our own.

Informed Consent Matters has developed a short, clear informational primer on the Covid booster, carefully designed and written to be non-alarmist in tone, and to simply give people the facts the media - and, sadly, the medical profession, too - so often obscure.

We believe we have a vital window of opportunity currently, as many more people are sceptical and asking questions than was the case in March 2020.

So, before the booster programme commences on September 5th, and we see a concomitant huge rise in pharmaceutical sales propaganda masquerading as news, please consider distributing some of our leaflets around your local area.

Our mission at Informed Consent Matters is to equip people with independent information and facts, to ensure any medical choice they make is made knowledgeably, confidently, and freely.

Thank you for your support and for promoting the critical legal, medical, and ethical importance of fully informed, voluntary and free, informed consent.

Letter to Dr. Sue Sherman of Keele University regarding her promotion of the HPV vaccine

Dear Dr. Sherman, I attended your lecture on the 27th January, 2016, regarding the HPV vaccination. I have been working in this field myself for some time, researching and raising awareness of the adverse effects associated with this vaccine. The HPV vaccines (Gardasil and the now-discontinued Cervarix) have the worst safety profiles of any vaccine to date, with far more serious adverse events reported than any other vaccine ever produced. These facts were omitted from your lecture.

Further, there is no evidence the HPV vaccination has or ever will prevent a single case of cancer. This fact was also omitted from your lecture; you stated that the HPV "prevents" cancer. As I stated, there is no evidence it has prevented a single case. At the end of your lecture, a male member of the audience raised some very valid concerns about the HPV vaccination, which I have briefly laid out above. Rather than engage with him in an appropriate manner, I feel that you behaved extremely unprofessionally by beginning to "rant" about so-called "anti-vaxxers", and then stated your extraordinary (and completely irrelevant to a debate on HPV) belief that "because of anti-vaxxers, whooping cough has come back". As an academic psychologist, you have a responsibility to maintain professional standards, which include the ability to appropriately entertain and engage with ideas that don't match your own. Your tirade against "anti-vaxxers" was not only emotionally driven and unprofessional, it was extremely intolerant and discriminatory, and could have caused great trauma and offence to members of the audience. You do not know what their personal beliefs on vaccination are, or whether a close family member of theirs may have been injured or killed by a vaccine. It is clear you are not well educated on the dangers of vaccines generally nor the HPV vaccine specifically (which you stated falsely has not caused any deaths), and that is your choice. But as an academic, you have a responsibility to encourage, support and respect debate, disagreement and diversity of ideas. Instead, I am of the view that your lecture was akin to indoctrination and "brainwashing", giving students none of the full facts, and aggressively attacking and mocking anyone who attempted to offer an alternative or fuller perspective. I feel that your conduct was in breach of the university's anti-discrimination policy, whose first priority in a higher education setting should be protecting from discrimination those who have different ideas. A very large number of scientists, doctors, researchers and activists have expressed grave concerns about both the safety and the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, including Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD, who recently wrote an open letter to the WHO accusing them of fraud and misconduct regarding this vaccination. http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Allegations-of-Scientific-Misconduct-by-GACVS.pdf I do not know whether Dr. Lee is, as you call it, an "anti-vaxxer". He may be; he may not be. But as a medical doctor, I am sure you will agree he is an eminently qualified authority to opine on the subject. Equally, anybody who raises concerns about the HPV vaccine may be fully in favour of every other vaccine, or they may not. These are their personal beliefs, to which they are fully entitled. These beliefs are not illegal, nor are they without considerable scientific evidence to back them up. So for you to use a public lecture as an opportunity to mock, ridicule and dismiss people who hold a different view to yours, is simply unacceptable. I am most disappointed and concerned to have had this experience at Keele, a university with which I have warm and long-standing ties (my name may look familiar to you; my father John Sloboda lectured at the university for 34 years, and it was in his namesake laboratory that you gave your lecture). I would like to seek your assurance that my concerns about your conduct will be taken very seriously. Yours sincerely, Miri Sloboda (Dr. Sherman passed the letter on to her Head of Department, Professor Michael Murray, who issued a brief reply.)

LETTER TO PROFESSOR MICHAEL MURRAY, 04/02/16

Dear Professor Murray, Thank you for your letter. I am pleased to hear that both you and Dr. Sherman took my concerns seriously, and that Dr. Sherman will continue to consider them as her work progresses. A further piece of information, of which you may both be unaware, is that the gentleman in the audience who challenged Dr. Sherman was Professor Chris Exley. I wanted to draw your attention to this to underline the fact that very highly qualified scientists have grave concerns about the HPV vaccine, even within Keele itself. I am keen to ensure that vaccine safety issues are not mischaracterised as only a concern of unqualified "anti-vaxxers", and also feel it crucially important to challenge the oft-repeated fallacy that "where it comes to vaccinations, the science is settled". It most certainly is not, as the debate between Dr. Sherman and Professor Exley illustrated. It may be of further interest to you to know that I am in the process of putting together an information website about vaccinations, specifically targeted at college and university students. You can visit the website here: [http://www.striveuk.webs,com] I am currently seeking contributions for my website from experts in the field, particularly regarding the HPV vaccine. Perhaps Dr. Sherman might consider contributing something to my site?

Yours sincerely, Miri Sloboda CC: Dr. Sue Sherman (I received no reply.)