JABS OPEN LETTER – 30 August 2020

 Sun 5:11 pm +01:00, 30 Aug 2020  

posted by Weaver

Please find below a letter which can be used as an example or adapted to write to medical professionals, health authorities, politicians or others regarding COVID-19 if it helps in any way.

Dear Doctor,

The current COVID-19 emergency measures.

I am writing with regard to the Government’s “emergency measures” which are to be reviewed in September 2020 and, in my opinion, should now be repealed as they are no longer warranted or proportionate to the current situation.

The interventions which were introduced in a lock-step fashion under the emergency measures have been a strategic disaster, not only for all the people affected but for the economy and the Government’s credibility. These measures have had a catastrophic effect on millions of people, including the healthcare sector, with little or no debate from opposition parties in Parliament or challenges from mainstream media. In my opinion there cannot have been any adequate risk-assessment of the potential cost to people’s mental wellbeing, overall health and livelihoods, all in response to a perceived threat of a virus (which has never been isolated) similar to a virulent seasonal flu.

The forced social distancing, isolation and face coverings imposed on healthy people have never been mandated on the British population in my lifetime. We were told these emergency measures were initially intended to be a short-term solution to protect the NHS’s ability to cope with a potential exponential rise in the infection rate of COVID-19.

There clearly has been some kind of pathogen circulating worldwide causing severe illness in some vulnerable people with underlying health conditions. However, we now find that as hospitalisations and deaths associated with the virus have fallen to negligible levels the measures have increased and the narrative has changed to a potential second wave with further lockdowns and mass vaccination programmes being threatened.

The virus (as attested in Sweden) has followed exactly the same path as other similar coronaviruses and flu – it has peaked, then declined to very low levels leaving those who were infected with some degree of natural immunity, without the need for vaccines or severe lockdowns.

Natural life-long herd immunity from the wild virus is far more effective than vaccine derived herd immunity which may only provide short-term protection (1). Note the forecasts of booster COVID-19 vaccines (2).

However, the Government is now further exaggerating the dangers of COVID-19 and raising to the next level to justify the rollout of fast-tracked, unlicensed vaccines which are by all accounts no longer warranted.

Under any reasonable, fact based, risk-assessment these emergency measures are now causing more physical and psychological damage than the virus itself and now need to be repealed as quickly as possible. I am certain the opposition from a growing number of well-informed doctors, scientists and public, worldwide. will escalate through increasing protests and legal challenges (3). Governments will not only lose credibility over their COVID-19 strategies but will also lose the trust of those who voted them into power. This has happened recently in Canada (4) and in Poland (5)

In a tweet received on the 23 August a nurse messaged: “I work for the NHS. If they make vaccines mandatory in the UK to continue my role, I will quit in a heartbeat and happily work in a warehouse. I’m not alone. How many good doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals are the NHS prepared to lose if this goes ahead?”

You will be aware that this crisis is not just happening in the UK. There are increasing numbers of protest marches taking place worldwide and a common theme is developing of a deep mistrust of the UK Government’s handling of the crisis. People want their lives to return to normal – not the ‘new normal’ the media keeps referring to – just normal. Normal doctor’s visits, normal workplace, normal schools, normal child-care facilities etc.

We now know so much more about the situation than we did at the beginning. Only those in certain vulnerable groups need to continue to be vigilant. However, they should now have access to potential proven treatments such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus Zinc.

I feel it is essential that the Government must conduct an open and independent public inquiry into the following COVID-19 issues:

Since 2004 a number of treatments in the form of HCQ, zinc with antibiotic (and other therapies) were known to be effective against coronavirus variants (e.g. SARS-CoV-1), but these treatments were recently politicised worldwide, then summarily dismissed as ineffective and dangerous, mainly as a result of World Health Organisation’s (WHO) funded studies which were later found to be fraudulent. These were published in eminent journals such as the Lancet (6) and the New England Journal of Medicine in the US which attracted wide public media attention, then had to be subsequently retracted.

It is now a growing concern that the treatment viability studies were stopped prematurely to clear the way for COVID-19 vaccine developments worldwide. The close co-operation between WHO, large corporations, governments and their agencies ensured investments of hundreds of millions of pounds, including tax-payers’ money, into fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine development and production programmes.

The result of this close collaboration, and dismissal of HCQ, was to ensure the vaccine was accepted by the public as the only saviour from the coronavirus scourge and the only way to get back to normal. The greatest tragedy here is that effective treatments have been withheld from thousands of early stage COVID-19 patients whose lives could have been potentially saved.

Q 1. Should those responsible for producing the falsified data used in the retracted studies be investigated, exposed and prosecuted?

Q 2. Who was responsible for authorising medical studies (experiments) in which up to six times the safe dose of HCQ was given to patients even though such high levels were known to be toxic?

Q 3. Medics and scientists from across the globe have reported on front-line experiences of successful treatments with HCQ but they have been censored from the media and the internet. (7) Who is responsible for the collusion with the media to conduct such censorship on free speech?

Q 4. The aforementioned treatments have proven capable of helping patients in the early stages of COVID-19 infection and were widely available. Why were patients denied the choice of potential life saving treatments?

Over the course of this COVID-19 outbreak in the UK the scientific advice has been co-ordinated by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) co-chaired by a former GlaxoSmithKline employee and a recipient of a $40 million research grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation respectively, Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Witty.

The Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B) was convened in February 2020, which provided advice to SAGE on “helping” people adhere to government interventions and demands (8). In other words, psychology and coercion have been used to frighten the British public to conform to the emergency measures. (9)

Q 5. What was the Government’s overall objective by increasing the fear factor in the population? 

Q 6. Was the fear that was generated used to lay the groundwork for the introduction of a compulsory COVID-19 vaccination? 

Q 7. Why was it necessary to employ a strategy of social disapproval on people who failed to comply with the government’s guidelines and policy which was in essence inciting hatred against a minority group? (10) A minority group that might have very good reasons for not complying.0)

It appears that from the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak there has been a concerted effort by Government and a compliant mainstream and social media to ramp up the fear factor within the public. People had become increasingly concerned in the face of Public Health England’s (PHE) figures demonstrating a relentless daily toll of more than a hundred COVID-19 associated deaths several days a week. This was in stark contrast to the reports coming from neighbouring regions (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), when there were days with no COVID-19 associated deaths whatsoever. (9)

Q 8. Who was responsible in PHE for selecting this method of collecting the data in this misleading way?

In a recent study by Williams, Crookes, Glass and Glass they addressed the question of how many deaths in England and Wales are due to COVID-19. They suggest that the numbers of deaths associated with COVID-19 are overstated and that over their study period deaths were between 54% to 63% lower on average per week.

Another important consequence raised by the above authors is the number of deaths due to lockdown measures:

“…The finding that the Government’s lockdown policy increased mortality in net terms is likely to be of particular interest, but is unremarkable. As noted, the lockdown rationale was not to reduce mortality in the first place, but rather, to ‘flatten the curve’. When one then considers the possibility that the policy might cause mortalities through unintended consequences, such a result is entirely plausible. This suggests further avenues of work to better understand the nature of the unintended consequences may be important. For example, unintended consequences may relate to a reduction in the provision of, and access to, other forms of critical healthcare. They might also include individuals choosing not to access healthcare during the lockdown, say because they perceived the risk from COVID to be greater than other critical medical conditions. What is directly observable, however, is a large reduction in said critical healthcare during the lockdown period. This has profound implications for both future policymaking and behavioural science. On the former, it raises questions about the merits of blanket policy responses that contrast with material variances in the actual risk by age and demographics. On the latter, one must consider whether the design of Government communications to encourage citizens to comply with lockdown in the first place inadvertently drive other, more harmful, behaviours….’ (11)

Q 9. Why has the Government recently reduced the death rates attributed to COVID-19 by only 10% when other studies indicate a much lower figure, less than half? (12)

In a recent written report authored by the COVID-19 Whistle-Blower Doctors they have signed off on the following statement (13):

• As there is no dangerous virus in the COVID-19 pandemic, we can all just go back to our normal way of living.
• The worldwide Corona mass hysteria must end now.
• There is no reason to keep distance from anybody because of COVID-19. It is not dangerous even for very old people, if they do not have a serious disease threatening their life already.
• There is no reason to avoid being infected.
• There is no way you can avoid getting the infection if you live in a city, but most likely you will not even notice it, as 99% or so of infections are subclinical.
• There is no reason for closed borders, and lock downs, closed restaurants, workplaces, schools, etc.
• Getting the COVID-19 infection will strengthen your immune system, so you also will be immune to the next common cold you attract.
• Every healthy carrier spreads the harmless COVID-19 virus to countless other people through very small droplets (4-0.01m) we exhale.
• There is no reason for the use of facemasks, as a facemask cannot filter these small droplets.
• There is no way we can avoid getting the infection if we live in a city. There is therefore no reason for hygienic and antiseptic procedures to try to avoid COVID-19.
• There is no need for drugs or vaccines against COVID-19; vaccine has adverse effects and a general, global vaccination programme for the harmless COVID-19, which the World Health Organisation (WHO) has suggested will not benefit but only harm countless people.
• The politicians and media responsible for the unfortunate situation of the world must do their best to undo the damage they have caused, by uncritically believing in the WHO and following its advices.
• Common, immediate and strong efforts on a global scale must focus an avoiding lasting harm on the wellbeing of the people, the economy, and the culture of human relations.

Dr. Bodo Schiffmann / Dr. David Katz / Dr. Else Smith / Dr. Gérard Krause, Dr. Heiko Schöning, / Dr. Jaroslav Belsky / Dr. Jenö Ebert / Dr. Joel Kettner / Dr. Karl J Probs / Dr. Leonard Coldwell / Dr. Mark Fiddike / Dr. med. Claus Köhnlein / Dr. Michael T Osterholm / Dr. MU, Dr. Martin Balík, Ph.D. / Dr. Peer Eifler / Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai / Dr. Vibeke Manniche / Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg / Dr. Yanis Roussel / MUDr. Jaroslav Svoboda / MUDr. Zdeněk Kalvach, CSc. / Prof. DDr. Martin Haditsch / Prof. Dr. Carsten Scheller /Prof. Dr. Jochen A Werner / Prof. Dr. John lonannidis / Prof.Dr. Matteo Bassetti / Prof. Dr. Stefan Hockertz / Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi / Prof. Dr. Yoram Lass / Prof. Erich Bendavid / Prof. Hendrik Streeck / Prof. Jay Bhattacharya / Prof. Karin Mölling / Prof. Klaus Püschel / Prof. Maria Rita Gismondo / Prof. MUDr. Cyril Höschl, DrSc. / Prof. MUDr. Jan Pirk, DrSc. / Prof. MUDr. Jiří Neuwirth, CSc., MBA / Prof. MUDr. Jiřina Bartůňková, DrSc., MBA / Prof. MUDr. Julius Špičák, CSc. / Prof. MUDr. Robert Lischke, PhD. / Prof. MUDr. Tomáš Zima, DrSc., MBA / Prof. PaedDr. Pavel Kolář, Ph.D. / Prof. Peter C Gøtzsche / Dr. Andrew Kaufman MD

“We wish to express our deepest gratitude for their courage to speak  against the authorities that have chosen to follow the WHO instead of the scientific experts, in a time where many who know do not dare to speak.” (13)

Q 10. If growing numbers of doctors and scientists around the world are making similar claims as stated above regarding COVID-19 and criticising the WHO, government politicians and the healthcare sector how can the UK Government defend its current position of enforcing emergency measures, mass vaccination plans or extending lockdown beyond the next review?

At the moment the government appears to be hell-bent on continuing with stringent measures until a COVID-19 vaccine is available (14). This is, in my opinion, totally ruinous.

The Prime Minister is currently trying to convince the country to get back to work and for children to get back to school. However, at the same time he is saying the situation is so perilous that every single standard for a (fast-tracked, inadequately safety tested) vaccine has to be abandoned and expects everybody to take it or any other medicine he chooses to dole out.

A new consultation document has just been produced: “Changes to Human Medicine Regulations to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines”. (15)

This consultation paper is about the changes to the UK regulatory framework for human medicines, which are being introduced to clarify the regulatory context that is relevant to mass vaccination.

The JCVI will advise the Government on which COVID-19 vaccines the UK should use, and on the priority groups to receive the vaccine. Andrew Pollard, Professor of Paediatric Infection and Immunity is currently co-chair of the JCVI, he is also Chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial at Oxford University and co-author of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 AZD1222 vaccine trial.

Q 11. In terms of clarity and transparency is there a potential conflict of interest here with regard to one foot in each camp?

The medical practitioners, agents and the vaccine manufacturers have sought and been given liability free status and have been given indemnity against prosecution by the government.

Q 12. So why is it that the only people taking any risk whatsoever are the people holding their arms out.

The Prime Minister must be aware that the proposed COVID-19 vaccine, as with all vaccines, will carry a risk of serious injury or death. The manufacturers’ product information sheets attest to this with other vaccines.  A recent example is the H1N1 vaccination which was introduced quickly into the population around 2009 and was found to be linked to narcolepsy and Guillain Barre syndrome (16) (17).

According to the British Medical Association: “In March 2015, a unanimous decision in the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board) made it clear that doctors must ensure their patients are aware of the risks of any treatments they offer and of the availability of any reasonable alternatives….

…Doctors must ‘take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’.

A ‘material risk’ is one in which ‘a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it’…

…When assessing risks, doctors cannot rely on percentages. The significance of a risk cannot be reduced to its likelihood.

Important factors will include:

• the nature of the risk, the effect which its occurrence would have upon the life of the patient
• the importance to the patient of the benefits sought to be achieved by the treatment
• the alternatives available and the risks involved in those alternatives…” (18) (19)

Unfortunately, some five years after the ruling stated above, this important legal advice is being ignored by the Government, not being followed by all doctors or disseminated to the public.

Q 13. With regard to experimental COVID-19 vaccines and the 2020 flu vaccinations are doctors aware of the contents, ingredients, contraindications and risks of the vaccines given singly or in close combination and will this information be made known to individuals? 

Public Health press statements have claimed that: “…vaccines are perfectly safe and perfectly effective…. That some COVID-19 vaccines might only be twenty to thirty per cent effective and recipients may need a course of up to four vaccines per year…”

Q 14. These kinds of generalised statements are grossly irresponsible and need to be challenged by all medical professionals. Will you as a doctor adhere to your oath of “first do no harm” and challenge all those who ignore good practice and medical ethics?

Q 15. In usual circumstances a patient is offered advice and information by the doctor regarding the safety and efficacy of medicines being prescribed for a particular illness or condition. However, a vaccination for COVID-19 and the new flu vaccination will be classed as medical interventions for which no long term safety trials have been conducted. Are you as a doctor comfortable with this fast-tracked approach to vaccinating the public with unlicensed and inadequately safety tested vaccines? 

The government is fully aware of the risks vaccines pose to the public with regard to serious adverse events. Vaccine damage payments have been awarded to the sum of over £74 million and the DWP lists all the vaccinations eligible to be assessed. (20)

Q 16. Will doctors lobby Government to update the vaccine damage payment scheme to include all people over 21 years of age, and all vaccinations?

With regard to vaccine safety data:

Q 17. Are doctors aware that health professionals only report between 2% and 10% of vaccine adverse reactions? (21)

Currently medical practices may well be conflicted by the financial entitlements paid to doctors for vaccinating children registered with the practice.

Q 18. Do you consider that his type of target based payment system may contribute to the high level of under-reporting of yellow cards and be a source of conflicts of interest?

Q 19. Do all doctors know that the medicines watchdog, the MHRA, fails to follow up on every adverse reaction reported? 

During meetings with the MHRA which I have attended, officers have stated that they do not routinely contact the reporting health professional, six months to 12 months later, to determine if the child or adult has fully recovered from the reaction or has further deteriorated.

Without this information neither the Department of Health nor doctors have any accurate safety data on vaccines. A point that has been raised with the government time and time again. (22) (23)

In the haste to speed up and implement vaccines for children and adults under the guise of emergency measures, caution is being thrown to the wind. People have a right to make informed consent. Doctors and anyone else authorised to vaccinate the public have a duty to facilitate this right under international agreements, conventions, European and British law.

As you know we live in a democracy and therefore the people of this country have the right to freedom of expression and to engage and challenge those who make the decisions with regard to COVID-19 emergency measures and vaccination.

For democracy to work people need to trust those in positions of power and expect them to act in the best interests of the public’s health and not be beholden to public/private partnerships or other corporate interests, e.g. vaccine production and marketing. Forcing questionable public health policies that trample on personal human rights, for the claimed greater good, also threatens the liberties of the individual and community which are the very foundation of a civilised democratic society which should be coveted and protected by everyone.

I would appreciate it if you as our family doctor, could consider the above points and opinions carefully and raise any/all of these points with the Chief Medical Officer, Medical Defence Unions and other appropriate authorities. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

http://www.jabs.org.uk/