Why should people not at risk of covid-19 be pressed to have covid-19 injections?

Re Why should people not at risk of covid-19 be pressed to have covid-19 injections

For the attention of:
Dr Fiona Godlee
Editor in Chief of The BMJ

Dear Dr Godlee, in a recent article on The BMJ, Mohammed Razai et al “offer an overview of vaccine hesitancy and some approaches that clinicians and policymakers can adopt at the individual and community levels to help people make informed decisions about covid-19 vaccination”.[1]

Currently it appears the covid-19 vaccine products aren’t claimed to prevent infection/transmission re SARS-CoV-2, they’re purported to reduce the symptoms of the disease covid-19. (This is an important distinction, which I realised after publication of my BMJ rapid response last year, requesting clarification of whether these were really covid-19 vaccines…or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?[2] I question the status of the covid-19 ‘vaccines’ and the quality of the ‘immunity’ they provide, and prefer to describe these products as covid-19 ‘injections’.)

But if people aren’t at serious risk of covid-19, why should they be pressed to have covid-19 injections? This applies to most people, particularly children and young people, who are not greatly affected by SARS-CoV-2.

Why are people not at serious risk of covid being set up to have covid injections throughout their entire lives?

This includes many people who may already be naturally immune. Their own effective natural immune response will be interfered with via these injections.

It’s planned to press these covid injections on the entire global population throughout life. We have no idea of the long-term consequences of this medical intervention to purportedly protect against a disease which isn’t a serious threat to most people.

Who initiated this plan to inject the entire global population with covid-19 injections, how was this plan evaluated? Certainly there was no public consultation about this rushed and unprecedented global covid-19 injection rollout, which is relevant to us all.

Now vaccine industry CEOs announce people may face a lifetime of covid injections, with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla saying “people will likely need a booster dose of a covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated” and “it’s possible people will need to get vaccinated against the coronavirus annually”.[3] How many billions will the vaccine industry make out of the booming covid injection market?

With covid-19 injections now being pressed upon people of all ages, including children in some countries, there must be public discussion on the ethics of injecting people who are not at risk with covid-19 with covid-19 injections, and the unknown cumulative consequences of covid injections throughout life, on top of the other vaccine load.

Dr Godlee, it’s commendable that Mohammed Razai et al are keen “to help people make informed decisions about covid-19 vaccination”, but clinicians and policymakers must think very carefully about pressing people not at risk of covid-19 to have covid-19 injections, potentially for the rest of their lives, as this is an ethical and legal minefield.

Razai et al and clinicians and policymakers and others would do well to pay careful attention to the points raised by Noel Thomas in his BMJ rapid response relevant to informed consent, e.g. “The many things that UK law expects of doctors when obtaining informed consent, include discussion of all material risks that a reasonable person might be expected to wish to know about” and “The fact that covid-19 vaccine makers have all declined to accept any compensation liability for their products, would surely be essential information to explain to any reasonable person, who might, in other circumstances, wonder at the wisdom of accepting an electric kettle, a bicycle, or a car, whose maker similarly lacked confidence in their product?”[4]

Just how informed is ‘the consent’ being given by the millions of people around the world being pressed to have covid-19 injections?

Dr Godlee, people not at serious risk of disease should not be coerced by doctors and others to have medical interventions of questionable benefit for them.

Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy

References:

  1. Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1138
  2. Covid-19 vaccines…or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines? Clarification needed: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-14
  3. Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html
  4. Re: Covid-19 vaccination hesitancy: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1138/rr-19

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite, Inc.

Responses

  1. Great retort Elizabeth. I’d like to say we are all born with a central healing mechanism & the real epidemic is toxicity in our bodies through the multitude of medications, food, chemicals and the air we breathe. Three quarter of the world population have livers functioning at a quarter of a percent. Fasting and detoxification needs to be paramount importance.

  2. Thank you Elizabeth. I’m in this category, and I view the blackmailing attempts as overt over-servicing of a particular product. This group has no unmet needs. This group already ‘won the race’ for immunity status, by a long shot (pun intended).
    I am aware of the state of Pfizer’s equity leading up to this product creating revenue to prevent this organisation from posting a loss this year or next. I query, “How many of the other manufacturers were going broke when these products came into being?”

  3. Your letter makes some excellent points. Why would anyone take advice on vaccines from people who don’t even recognize that natural immunity from having had Covid is more effective than that induced by a vaccine.

  4. Elizabeth,

    I was going to comment in detail but there are so many logical errors in your arguments that I will forego it. The rationale for this vaccine is quite similar to the MMR vaccine. We have to achievehave to achieve herd immunity in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We should feel fortunate to have the resources that have been brought to bear. I cannot support anti-vax attitudes from those who seem to be emboldened only now that it is somewhat safer due to the efforts of scientific professionals. Not productive…Not courageous… and certainly not empathetic.

    1. Elizabeth’s view makes perfect sense unless you’re ignoring a lot of truths about the so called vaccines. It is not anti vax to question facts that show the flaws in the design of these treatments.

    2. Citoyenjohn, ‘this vaccine’ is not similar to the MMR vaccine…
      The MMR vaccine is a ‘live’ virus vaccine, it’s very different.
      The theory is one dose of MMR should provide lifelong protection, i.e. ‘sterilising immunity’.
      The reason they give for giving two doses is that some children might not respond to the first dose, probably because of interference by maternally derived antibodies (MDA).
      So because of this, because a small number might not respond, they give two doses to every child!
      I think this is wrong, to revaccinate people who are already likely to be immune, this is an unnecessary medical intervention. See for example my BMJ rapid response on this matter: Questioning the second dose of live MMR vaccine – response to David Oliver, 28 May 2019.
      In the past I’ve argued that parents should be offered the opportunity of an antibody titer test for their children, to check if they’re immune after the first dose. There’s a precedent for this, i.e. Holly’s Law, which was enacted in New Jersey in the US, after five year old Holly Stavola died from encephalopathy after her second dose of MMR vaccine.
      See the Antibody Titer Law.
      Not a lot of people know about this though… For some reason they’re not keen to promote antibody titer testing after MMR vaccination…why could this be do you think?
      For some more background on my investigations into MMR vaccination, see this webpage on my website over-vaccination.net, it’s a few years old, but still relevant: Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) ‘booster’.
      There are emerging problems with the MMR vaccine…for example maternally derived antibodies in the babies of vaccinated mothers may wane earlier than in the babies of mothers who had wild measles. This could be a serious issue, because if the MDA wanes earlier, this means babies could be vulnerable at an earlier age, when they’re not actually equipped for the exposure…it’s complicated, and something that alarmingly is not being taken seriously.
      See my BMJ rapid responses:
      Measles vaccination – is anyone worried about shorter term maternally derived antibodies via vaccinated mothers?, 29 October 2018
      Universal measles vaccination – “well worth the risk of reduced transplacental immunity and increased vulnerability in adults…”?, 11 November 2018.

    3. The use of the derogatory label of “anti-vax,” when applied to individuals exercising their rights to informed consent, is an ignorant misnomer. The injections are experimental and the long-term effects are unknown. Just recently, Dr. Byram Bridle has raised an alarm, about his teams access to information for study data from Japan, demonstrating that the injected material gravitates beyond what was expected. This is what happens when you roll out experimental injections before the years long trials normally required.

      The other issue in your response that deserves comment, is your claim that giving the injections to everyone (regardless of their own risk) is necessary for “herd” immunity. If that is the case, prior to injection, people should have the right to pre-screening for antibodies. There is emerging evidence of cross-immunity from previous related viruses, as well as many qualified docs and scientists who are adamant that people who have had covid, are immune. Some are suggesting that the injections in this case are contraindicated and may cause more harm. There are many of us who are grateful to those doctors, scientists, researchers, journalists, and others (Steve Kirsch) who are willing to dig past the narrative. It is called critical thinking. So what you call “not courageous,” I call very courageous. It is not an easy pathway to take, and many good people have had their reps tarnished by those who are pushing the “vaccines are the only way out” narrative. Why would anyone do this, who has nothing to personally gain? They wouldn’t, would they? Those pushing the “narrative” have much to gain, and everything to lose should the injections be exposed for what they are – experimental, based on technology which has never been broadly used, for a virus which has never been successfully inoculated against. And now they want our children to be jabbed. No thanks, deleted user.

      This CNN article references some previous issues around rushed vaccines – I guess CNN was still doing its job last September: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html