Content Sections
Background
Note: You will see an advertising banner beneath our videos that play off the Brighteon platform (when they are not maximised). This advertising helps support the Brighteon platform that doesn't charge subscribers for their content, is committed to free speech, yet is also respectful of copyright-related law. We'd like to clarify that no advertising revenue from Brighteon is received by the Alliance for Natural Health Intl.
Legislative changes to The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMRs) that fast-track mass vaccination using unregistered vaccines, as well as permit their advertising by commercially interested parties and their administration by non-health care professionals, should not be supported until such time that:
- A full range of plausible therapeutic treatments and pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical prevention options have been thoroughly evaluated and found to be of no significant benefit to public health
- Definitive results from trials (Phase III) are placed in the public domain that demonstrate COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable risk/benefit profile to justify mass vaccination
- Scientific testing of possible interactions between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines has been conducted and shown to not cause any disease enhancement or other negative interaction given the two vaccines may be administered jointly.
The proposed amendments to the HMRs undo over half a century of regulatory development in the fields of medicinal and consumer protection law that had the intent of protecting the interests of citizens.
The expansion of legal immunity to civil liability, coupled with a reversal of the prohibition of direct-to-consumer advertising and the expansion of the workforce of vaccine administrators outside the healthcare professions, provides a recipe for coercion and a disregard for informed consent. This would create an environment where the planned mass vaccination programme of the British public using novel, unlicensed COVID-19 vaccines could constitute serious breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998.
Following is the response (in both full and summary forms) by the Alliance for Natural Health International to the Department of Health and Social Care’s consultation on Changes to Human Medicines Regulations to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines.
The deadline for responses is 18 September 2020 and responses should be made online at the following portal: https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f
Your response should be given in each of the 5 sub-sections of the consultation, namely:
- authorising temporary supply of an unlicensed product
- civil liability and immunity
- expanding the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
- promoting vaccines
- making provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccine
You are free to use as much or as little of either our summary or full draft responses as you wish in your own response. We are hopeful that a large number of people resident in the UK will see fit to respond in order that the UK Government is forced to reconsider making such sweeping changes to medicines law that currently, particularly in the absence of thorough evaluation of other options for reducing the impact of COVID-19, appear not to be in the public’s best interest.
It is these proposed legislative changes that will give the UK Government carte blanche to roll-out unlicensed COVID vaccines once approval has been granted by the licensing authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). That could put the public at significant and, as yet, unknown risk.
We invite comments or feedback that can be emailed to [email protected] with the subject ‘UK covid vaccine consultation’ and we will take these into account when making our final submission.
SUMMARY CONSULTATION RESPONSE BY ANH Intl
1. Authorising temporary supply of an unlicensed product
- There are no trial data as yet that confirm the risk/benefit profile of candidate vaccines, therefore it is premature to change to change existing provisions under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (HMRs)
- The UK Govt has yet to adequately evaluate other options for therapeutic treatments and prevention approaches that could be delivered under the existing legislative framework. The terms ‘safety’ and ‘effectiveness’ need to be qualified
- Full transparency of raw data from phase 1 to 3 clinical trials to allow independent assessment
- Any revisions to Regulation 174 should include a new condition in which evidence of non-disclosure of relevant data or information by manufacturers or triallists relating to quality, safety or effectiveness would represent a breach of the temporary authorisation of the unregistered vaccine.
2. Civil liability and immunity
- The existing provisions under Regulation 174(3) are too limited and should be clarified further
- The “reasonable person” should exclude persons “with an interest in placing products on the market”
- This is owing to inherent conflicts of interest which would reduce the likelihood of an ‘objective bystander’ view that is in the public interest
- Non-disclosure, omission or errors of relevant data or information relating to quality, safety or effectiveness, whether deliberate or the result of negligence would constitute a breach in the conditions of temporary authorisation.
3. Expanding the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
- Administrators of vaccines are typically key providers of information required to ensure informed consent
- Individuals who are not authorised health care professionals have no accountability, nor is there oversight in terms of their expertise in the complex and uncertain field of vaccine science
- The Sideaway 1985 case [AC871] set the precedent for doctors who operated without consent of patients being guilty of the civil wrong of trespass to the person and the criminal offence of assault
- Providing immunity from civil liability to non-health care professionals would create scenarios in which individuals were readily deprived of fundamental human rights through lack of informed consent (The Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 14)
- Accordingly, proposed amendments to Regulations 229, 230, 231, 233 and 234 that seek to expand the workforce of vaccinators beyond authorised health care professionals are rejected.
4. Promoting vaccines
- Reversing the prohibition on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of unlicensed medicines and vaccines would be a backwards step
- Mass vaccination with unlicensed vaccines during a pandemic is non-commercial activity and therefore should not include advertising
- Advertising involves communication of claims, yet given the experimental nature of vaccines there is great uncertainty over claims
- It would be wrong to provide immunity to civil liability to vaccine manufacturers allowing them to escape consumer protection laws that bind other advertisers
- Advertising could include deceptive messages, omission of important information and the use of aggressive sales technics which would otherwise constitute breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
- It would be ethically wrong to use the pandemic to shoehorn in much wider changes that would in effect ‘Americanise’ advertising by pharmaceutical interests.
5. Making provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccine
- It is acceptable to limit wholesale license exemption to NHS organisations, NHS contracted service providers, and the medical services of the armed forces.
CONSULTATION RESPONSE BY ANH Intl
1. Authorising temporary supply of an unlicensed product
General Comments
The proposed legislative changes to UK medicines law, that has since 1965 been based on that of European Economic Community (EEC) and subsequently the European Union (EU), represents the greatest change to UK medicines law in over half a century. The proposal, among other things, seeks to: 1) fast-track regulatory approval of unlicensed COVID-19 vaccines, 2) permit individuals other than qualified health care professionals to administer the vaccines so reducing the potential for properly informed consent, 3) reinstate direct-to-consumer advertising and promotion of drugs, at least for COVID-19 vaccines, and, 4) to expand the conditions under which vaccine makers or those administering vaccines are given immunity from civil liability in the event of injury.
The proposal throws to the wind 55 years of development of regulatory processes, expanded patient informed consent procedures and the mandating of more transparency from drug manufacturers.[1] These changes were adopted by the European Economic Community in 1965 as part of its medicinal code that intended to avoid any reoccurrence of disasters such as that linked to the use of the drug thalidomide by pregnant women in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
The current proposal can only be justified if six criteria are met.
Firstly, it has been adequately demonstrated that the current status of COVID-19 warrants a mass vaccination programme based on the known progression of the epidemic, including plausible estimations of the infection fatality ratio (IFR) i.e., the proportion of all those who are infected who die, and excess mortality, taking into account mortality displacement. Infection fatality rates are much more meaningful than case fatality rates (CFRs) as the latter are confounded by the amount of testing being conducted as well as by changes in methods of case assessment over time. They also do not take into account the asymptomatic or those who have recurrent infection but remain relatively healthy despite infection. Attempts to accurately determine the IFR require population-based serological studies that have yet to be prioritised by the Government. Therefore estimates of the IFR should include: a) only fatalities for which COVID-19 has been recorded on the death certificate as the primary cause of death; or b) fatalities where infection was positively determined by RT-PCR tests within 28 days of death, and; c) the extent of community-wide infection has been determined following population-based serologic studies. Even with existing data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) which do not meet these criteria, the IFR in the UK at the end of July/beginning of August 2020 was estimated to be between 0.3 and 0.6%.[2] Excess deaths, while having increased significantly beyond 5-year averages during the peak of the pandemic, are currently neutral or negative for both COVID-19 involved and non-COVID-19 involved deaths.[3] There was some evidence of mortality displacement in the 4 nations of the UK from week 24, this being a short-term forward shift in mortality whereby a certain proportion of deaths (both COVID-19 related and unrelated, although potentially caused by inadequate healthcare delivery owing to the redirection of effort towards COVID-19) occurred in patients that would have died of other conditions in the following weeks or months.[4]
Secondly, it has been adequately demonstrated that the UK government, its agencies and the universities and institutions that have been funded to help reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have exhausted all other options for therapeutic treatments or prevention approaches that could be delivered under the existing legislative framework (or at least a post-Brexit version that does not also seek to expedite roll-out of unregistered vaccines).
Thirdly, sufficient data are made publicly accessible that unequivocally demonstrate that one or more of the COVID-19 vaccines are both “safe” and “effective”.
Fourthly, that the terms “safety” and “effectiveness” as used in the second criterion (above) are qualified, following public and Parliamentary consultations. “Safety” could, for example, be defined by the relative incidence of adverse events in Phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical trials as compared with other vaccines intended for adult populations, such as those targeting influenza A(H1N1). The definition of “effectiveness”, on the other hand, should reflect the proportion (say 60%) of the vaccinated population that had been found to be immune to symptoms of disease if infected over a given period (say 12 months).
Fifth, there is full transparency of raw data from Phase 1 to 3 clinical trials to allow independent scrutiny and evaluation. These data should be able to be evaluated entirely independently by evidence-based medical research groups, such as the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and the Institute for Scientific Freedom in Copenhagen.
The sixth and final criterion is that the legislative changes are deemed necessary because the existing provisions in The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 are deemed insufficient, inadequate or not fit for purpose. Our own assessment of the current provisions do not suggest that the provisions require change, this being considered in subsequent sections of our response.
We demand that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) provides comprehensive answers with respect to each of these six criteria. Conforming with these criteria would help to ensure that independent evaluation of data that typically is seen only by regulatory authorities, in the UK’s case, the MHRA, is assured. Given the revolving door that has been shown to exist between pharmaceutical companies and regulators, it is entirely inappropriate that the MHRA is given sole access and sight of manufacturers’ and trial data. Broadening of the responsibility for evaluation of data would also seek to build public confidence in the authorisation process, which would still be executed, managed and policed by the MHRA.
Incorrect assumptions
In putting forward its proposal for radical changes to The Human Medicines Regulation 2012, the DHSC has made two assumptions that are fundamentally flawed, largely invalidating the justification for the proposed legislative changes where these specifically ease the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines.
The Introduction opens with the statement: “COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history.” This statement is not supported by fact. Public Health England data[5] on premature mortality (death among the under-75s) in England alone accounted for about 330 deaths per 100,000. This compares with a current risk of death of around 62 per 100,000 for deaths at any age in which COVID-19 was involved, the majority of these deaths occurring among those over the age of 75.[6] Premature deaths from cancer alone (132 per 100,000) are over twice the Covid-related mortality figure. A study evaluating the effects of socioeconomic inequality published in the Lancet showed that 36% of all premature deaths between 2003 and 2018 were caused by social inequality.[7] The Government’s response to COVID-19, whether or not it was right or wrong, will have the effect of greatly increasing socioeconomic inequality and thereby will significantly increase premature deaths in the future. The stock market reaction to COVID-19, itself a marker for future social and economic impacts, has exceeded that for any previous pandemic, including the Spanish ‘flu’ of 1918-19 and the influenza pandemics of 1957-58 and 1968. This stronger reaction was considered to be primarily the result of government restrictions on commercial activity and social distancing exerting their effect on service-orientated economies.[8] Based on the factors above, it must therefore be asserted that COVID-19 does not actually pose the biggest threat to this country in peacetime history. More than that, given the massive impacts on society and business caused by government policy in response to COVID-19, that the biggest threat this country has faced is linked to the consequences of the human (and governmental) response to COVID-19, rather than to the effects of the disease itself. It is of course not possible to estimate or predict what the consequences of a business-as-usual approach might have been on Covid-related mortality in the UK had this option been considered, but the Swedish example does suggest that severe lockdown measures do not significantly reduce total mortality, and may extend the duration of the epidemic or the risk of further infection waves.
The second paragraph of the Introduction makes another bold assumption, one that is both unsupported and, currently, unsupportable, as follows: “Effective COVID-19 vaccines will be the best way to deal with the pandemic”. UK data show that based on “deaths involving COVID-19”, 63% occurred in hospitals and 30% in care homes.[9] This is evidence of significant shortcomings in critical care and care home treatment protocols, areas in which the DHSC has failed to sufficiently invest or evaluate. This failure is predicated on the unjustified assumption that vaccines would deliver the best outcomes. This assumption was made both without any meaningful or reliable data on the effectiveness (or safety) of COVID-19 vaccines, and without due consideration for alternate treatment or prevention options. Since the UK government has avoided evaluating options against which the safety and efficacy profile of vaccines could be compared, once data become available, the Government should not be given the remit to create a legislative regime that greatly increases the exposure of the public to unregistered vaccines that, at the time the legislative changes were made, are of unknown safety or effectiveness. The Government’s failure to evaluate or develop multi-lateral protocols for use on those who are seriously or critically ill with COVID-19, including the MATH+ protocol[10] being used by critical care doctors in the USA, combined with the absence of safety and effectiveness data on COVID-19 vaccines that, in the main, rely on novel platforms involving genetically engineered antigens, dictates that the Government’s assumption that vaccines are the “best” way of dealing with the pandemic is defective.
Legislative comments
The existing Regulation 174 of The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 already makes provision for temporary authorisation of unregistered COVID-19 vaccines by the MHRA. While the proposed new Regulation 174A provides additional conditions for temporary authorisations that will be relevant to unregistered COVID-19 vaccines, they do not go far enough if the aim is, as stated in the guidance, “to ensure product safety, quality and efficacy” with the intention of offering a high level of public protection. To do this adequately, it is necessary to add an additional condition.
This condition, that would invalidate the temporary authorisation, would be discovery of non-disclosure of relevant data or information held by manufacturers or triallists at the time the temporary authorisation was granted when such data or information relates to quality, safety or effectiveness. Such non-disclosure has been common historically.[11],[12] Given the proposed fast-tracking of the approval process, and the perceived demand for COVID-vaccines, there is a greater than ever risk that manufacturers or triallists will avoid full disclosure of relevant data. Accordingly, inclusion of such an additional provision will likely increase public confidence in vaccination.
References
[1] Rehman W, Arfons LM, Lazarus HM. The rise, fall and subsequent triumph of thalidomide: lessons learned in drug development. Ther Adv Hematol. 2011; 2(5): 291-308.
[2] Daniel Howdon, Jason Oke, Carl Heneghan. Estimating the infection fatality ratio in England. COVID-19 Evidence Blog, 21 August 2020: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/estimating-the-infection-fatality-ratio-in-england/#:~:text=MRC%20figures%20imply%20an%20IFR,week%20series%20on%2023%20June.
[3] Hauck K, Ferguson N. Weekly estimates of expected deaths and excess non-COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic in England and Wales. J-IDEA COVID-19 excess deaths tracker for England and Wales. https://j-idea.github.io/ONSdeaths/.
[4] EuroMOMO data for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Z-scores: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps.
[5] Public Health England source data: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/health-profiles/data#page/3/gid/1938132696/pat/6/par/E12000004/ati/102/are/E06000015/iid/40501/age/163/sex/4/cid/4/page-options/car-ao-1_ovw-do-0_eng-vo-0_eng-do-0_car-do-0.
[6] Public Health England; Mortality Profile – premature mortality: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/mortality-profile/data#page/0/page-options/ovw-do-0.
[7] Lewer D, Jayatunga W, Aldridge RW, et al. Premature mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality in England between 2003 and 2018: an observational study [published correction appears in Lancet Public Health. 2020 Jan;5(1):e18]. Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5(1): e33-e41. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2468-2667%2819%2930219-1
[8] Baker SR, Bloom N, Davis SJ, et al. The unprecedented stock market reaction to COVID-19. The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 2020: raaa008.
[9] Office of National Statistics, ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales….week ending 28 August 2020’: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending28august2020#deaths-registered-by-age-group.
[10] MATH+ Protocol, Eastern Virginia Medical School, VA, USA: https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf.
2. Civil liability and immunity
General comments
Manufacturers of vaccines in national vaccination programmes have had immunity from civil liability for over 30 years where there is no evidence of negligence or defectiveness in the vaccine or its manufacture. Where there is evidence of negligence that results in a defective product that causes injury, the injured party has recourse under the Consumer Protection Act (1987) (CPA) to sue for damages. The proposed clarification of conditions under which immunity from civil liability would be lost under proposed Regulation 174(3) is too limited and should be expanded and clarified further. We propose the addition of another condition that relates to error, omission or non-disclosure, whether deliberate or the result of negligence, that would not only better protect the public interest, it would also be likely to bolster public confidence. This condition is set out below.
Legislative comments
In terms of the proposal for inclusion or exclusion of the bracketed section that would qualify, or not, the nature of the ‘objective bystander’, the “reasonable person” who would assess the breach in the eyes of the courts, it is our resounding view that this should explicitly exclude persons “with an interest in placing medicinal products on the market” (i.e. representatives of pharmaceutical companies or other companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain). This is because such persons will have an inherent vested or conflict of interest, implying he or she would typically place his or her interest in protecting his, her or the company’s financial interests over and above the interests of the public including the public’s health.
It has been shown repeatedly that pharmaceutical companies act consistently in ways that further their own interests, these being related typically to financial gain or market control.[13],[14],[15]
Such concerns apply not only to manufacturers of conventional drugs, but also to manufacturers of vaccines.[16]
An additional condition that should constitute a breach of the temporary authorisation is given below:
Non-disclosure, omission or errors of relevant data or information relating to quality, safety or effectiveness, whether deliberate or the result of negligence, that mean that, at the time of approval, effectiveness was over-estimated and safety under-estimated, would constitute a breach in the conditions of temporary authorisation.
Such data or information, as well as the extent of the over- or under-estimates would then be able to be judged by the courts in the eyes of an objective “reasonable person” without an interest in placing medicinal products on the market.
References
[11] Doshi P, Jefferson T. Open data 5 years on: a case series of 12 freedom of information requests for regulatory data to the European Medicines Agency. Trials. 2016;17:78..
[12] Doshi P, Bourgeois F, Hong K, et al. Adjuvant-containing control arms in pivotal quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine trials: restoration of previously unpublished methodology [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 17]. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020; bmjebm-2019-111331.
[13] House of Commons: Health Committee. The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Fourth Report of Session 2004-05. Great Britain: Parliament.
[14] Angell, M. The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do about It. Random House Trade Paperbacks. ISBN: 0375760946, 9780375760945.
[15] Gøtzsche, P. Deadly Medicines and organised crime: How Big Pharma has corrupted healthcare. 2013. Radcliffe Publishing. ISBN 978‐184619‐884‐7.
3. Expanding the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations
General comments
The entire basis of informed consent is based on the premise of granting permission for a given medical intervention (in this case COVID-19 vaccination) in the knowledge of possible consequences. Informed consent is a key component of ethical medical practice and requires compliance with The Human Rights Act 1998. Particularly relevant to informed consent are: Article 2 (protection of the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), Article 5 (the right to liberty and security), Article 9 (the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights).[17]
Informed consent must include the provision of information by a health care professional on the risks, benefits, advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options including not receiving treatment (in this case vaccinating).[18],[19]
Given the complexity and uncertainty of science around vaccination, it is not possible for a person who is not a qualified health care professional to provide the information required to ensure informed consent. Therefore the expansion of the workforce allowed to administer vaccinations to persons who are not authorised health care professionals (i.e., registered doctors, nurses, pharmacists or allied health care professionals) cannot be supported. The lack of provision of sufficient information that would be required to ensure properly informed consent would likely constitute a breach of The Human Rights Act 1998.
In the case Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] AC 871, Lord Carman stated: “A doctor who operates without the consent of his patient, save in cases of emergency or mental disability, is guilty of the civil wrong of trespass to the person; he is also guilty of the criminal offence of assault."
It therefore follows if informed consent has not been granted, a situation that is more likely to arise in the absence of relevant information on risks and benefits being furnished by a suitably trained and qualified health care professional, vaccination could be construed as a civil wrong or trespass to the person. Additionally, the vaccinator could be found guilty of the criminal offence of assault. This is presumably why the proposed amendments to The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 seek to grant to such unregistered persons immunity to civil liability.
For the reasons given above, it would be entirely inappropriate to put such individuals, who lack the duty of care associated with authorised health care professionals, in the authoritative position of administering an invasive medical procedure about which they have limited knowledge. Their lack of background, qualifications, training and oversight by a registration authority are very unlikely to give them the required capacity to understand the complex and often uncertain scientific and medical information surrounding vaccines and vaccination. Yet the person administering the vaccine is often the key individual with which a vaccine recipient interacts when providing their consent for vaccination.
Additionally, there is a likelihood that non-authorised health care professionals could be trained by commercially interested parties in ways that seek to maximise vaccination uptake to the extent that the approach taken by the vaccine administrator could readily, particularly if not adequately supervised, constitute coercion. Given that consent must include sufficient information and be voluntary, even where the person administering the intervention is a health care professional, “consent where an individual has been coerced into making the decision will not be valid.”[20]
Legislative comments
Accordingly we reject all proposed amendments (Regulations 229, 230, 231, 233 and 234) that seek to expand the workforce of vaccinators beyond the scope of authorised health care professionals, who already maintain immunity from civil liability under the terms of existing article 345(3)(d) which would include COVID-19 vaccination.
References
[16] Gøtzsche, P. Vaccines: Truth, lies and controversy. 2020. People’s Press.
[17] See Point 5, page 6, Department of Health. Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment. 2009. Second Edition. Department of Health, UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138296/dh_103653__1_.pdf.
[18] General Medical Council (GMC). Seeking patients’ consent: The ethical considerations. 1998. General Medical Council, London.
[19] Sellinger C. The right to consent: Is it absolute? BJMP 2009: 2(2): 50-54.
[20] British Medical Association. Getting consent adults with capacity as a medical student: Ethics for Medical Students. Updated 1 May 2020. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/medical-students/ethics-toolkit-for-medical-students/adults-with-capacity-and-consent.
4. Promoting vaccines
General comments
There has been a prohibition on direct-to-consumer advertising since the passage of The Medicines (Labelling and Advertising to the Public) Regulations 1978. There is also a prohibition on advertising unlicensed medicines (for which available data on safety and efficacy is often much more limited as compared with ones that are licensed) to health care professionals. There are three key reasons why the reversal of policy that would entail casting aside the existing prohibition on drug advertising is untenable:
- Mass vaccination with unlicensed vaccines during a pandemic is a non-commercial activity aimed at enhancing public health and therefore should not include direct-to-consumer advertising. Advertising is defined as “the activity or profession of producing advertisements for commercial products or services”.[21] Citizens who will receive COVID-19 vaccines under the terms of Regulation 174 will not themselves be engaging with a commercially interested party, despite the fact that, as taxpayers, they indirectly pay for the vaccine. During a national mass vaccination programme utilising unlicensed vaccines with temporary authorisation, the party with which the public will primarily engage is health services administered by the Government authorities (e.g. Department of Health and Social Care, NHS, Public Health England, etc.). There will be no direct commercial relationship between commercially interested parties and the public. Therefore the amendment that proposes removal of the current prohibition on promoting unlicensed medicines to the public and health professionals could more correctly be considered a form of propaganda than advertising. Government and commercial parties will both derive greater financial benefit the greater the level of vaccine uptake so have vested interests that extend beyond the purported public health goals of mass vaccination.
- Advertising typically involves the communication of claims, yet there will be great uncertainty over the claims. The amendment provides no clarification on how claims would be agreed. Presently medicinal claims are established during the extensive and time-consuming marketing authorisation process following evaluation of large quantities of data on safety, efficacy and quality. In the case of fast-tracked, unlicensed vaccines, there will be neither sufficient data nor the necessary time to adequately substantiate the accuracy of any advertising claim that might be used to enhance vaccine uptake. The Advertising Standards Authority presently acts as the advertising watchdog on behalf of the media industry, Government and the public, and there would be insufficient data available for it to be able to adjudicate in a manner that is proportionate with other sectors over the truthfulness, ambiguity or non-misleading nature of any direct or implied claims made in advertising.
- Advertisers are typically bound by consumer protection law, yet vaccine manufacturers and distributors would be immune to civil liability. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 provide wide ranging safeguards for consumers. In order to maintain a high level of protection for consumers, companies cannot mislead or harass consumers, for example “by including false or deceptive messages… leaving out important information…using aggressive sales techniques.” [22]
Moreover, The Consumer Protection Act 1987 protects the public from products that do not reach a reasonable level of safety. If commercially interested parties are given the opportunity to advertise unlicensed products that have not undergone the same level of evaluation as licensed products, the public (consumer) may be unwittingly exposed to unsafe products.
In both these cases, it is deeply unethical to indemnify commercially interested parties (which act as advertisers) against any civil liability. The actions of advertisers engaged with COVID-19 vaccines could quite feasibly be construed as breaches of The Human Rights Act 1998.
Legislative comments
We wholeheartedly reject any attempt to ease advertising restrictions on unlicensed products for the reasons given above. More than that, it is extraordinary that the spectre of the current pandemic is being used as a means of shoehorning in much wider changes that in effect will go a long way towards the ‘Americanisation’ of advertising by pharmaceutical interests.
The history of the development of DTC advertising for drugs has been complex in the USA and the current rules governing marketing were cemented in 1999. They require advertisers to include information about the risks associated with using the drug under the "adequate provision requirement" [23]. The lack of information about the safety of an unlicensed vaccine (both from trials required for licensing and post-marketing surveillance) does not allow for the adequate provision of information to citizens.
Insufficient knowledge and research on safety of novel, unlicensed vaccines imply that their administration as part of a heavily promoted (and advertised) mass vaccination programme of the public will amount to a form of experimentation on the public. This could amount to an abuse that would be in breach of ethical standards that have been in existence since the Nuremberg trials, or even earlier [24].
References
[21] Oxford English Dictionary/Lexico, definition of advertising: https://www.lexico.com/definition/advertising.
[22] Gov.UK – Marketing and advertising: the law: https://www.gov.uk/marketing-advertising-law/regulations-that-affect-advertising.
[23] FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/media/75406/download.
[24] Vollmann J, Winau R. Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. BMJ 1996; 313 :1445.
5. Making provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccine
We are generally in agreement with the proposal, given the wholesale license exemption is limited to NHS organisations, NHS contracted service providers, and the medical services of the armed forces.
In the section of the consultation response in which the DHSC asks “What could we do better?”, ANH-Intl has responded as follows:
The guideline document and the draft amendments to the HMR could have been line numbered which would have made it easier to reference particular parts of either document. We obviously don't know how you are going to handle the consultation responses but we hope you will publicly identify all individuals and organisations who responded and put all responses in the public domain to ensure transparency. We also hope that you will engage with those who have responded, including with citizen-supported non-profits like ours which represent those who have concerns about the mass vaccination with unlicensed Covid-vaccines, including potential interactions with seasonal influenza vaccines. It is essential that transparency is maintained so that citizens can interact with their elected MPs prior to the passage of the legislation in Parliament. To not do this in a transparent manner would be to deny due democratic process.
LINK FOR ONLINE SUBMISSION
Find out more at ANH-Intl's Covid - Adapt, Don't Fight campaign page
Comments
your voice counts
Emma-louise
11 September 2020 at 6:33 am
Thank you so very much for all your hard work!
Julie Burgess
14 September 2020 at 8:31 pm
I do not agree with the proposed mass vaccination. I don’t want to be used as a guinea pig. I want the right to say no.
Darren Shaw Gmail
15 September 2020 at 7:25 pm
I don't want to either my friend
Melody Evans I’m
18 September 2020 at 12:50 pm
Agreed, we should be given a right to voice our views via vote before such legislation being put into place. Not okay.
Ronald Cobran
17 September 2020 at 11:56 am
I don't want to be a Guinea pig in any vaccination program.
Susan Edwards 52
17 September 2020 at 10:56 pm
I totally agree
Jillian Miller
18 September 2020 at 9:10 pm
I do not agree to this
Ian Maw Family Executor
15 September 2020 at 10:45 am
This is experimental untested theoretical and too risky to mess with our genes or even our dna. The WHO have admitted that they will be using contravercial method as the will be using nano particles to trick the bodies natural defence mechanisms to insert the dna of the antibodies generated in bacteria. This method has been in controversies for decades and the globalist government's are warning us this is for the common good and we will be denied access to buy and sell or even work if we do not cooperate. This is an attack on our democracy. They are even saying they will not be a countable for it's results. They are playing God. They think they can improve on the human genome which has been fearfully and wonderfully made. Only evolutionists think they can improve on what they believe is an evolving human who came out of the swamp. This is evil totalitarian. We have rights under Heaven to say NO
Leroy Barr
15 September 2020 at 1:43 pm
No
Nina Morris
17 September 2020 at 7:49 pm
I do not agree with this experimentally vaccinenation I am not a Guinea pig I have right I say No.
Leroy Barr
15 September 2020 at 1:42 pm
I do not agree.
Carole
15 September 2020 at 7:56 pm
This is so wrong. Thanks for bringing to attention
Dr Geoff Freed www.geofffreed.com
16 September 2020 at 11:00 am
I AM TOTALLY AGAINST MANDATORY VACCINATIONS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE SAFE AND WE HAVE NO RECOURSE IF DAMAGED BY THEM AND LEFT TO PERISH BY THE MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WHO WILL EARN PROFIT FROM OUR SUFFERING FOR WHO CAN HELP US WITH THE DAMAGE. THE NEW FORM OF VACCINE mRNA ALTERS OUR DNA AND ALSO THE DANGEROUS ADJUTANTS IN THEM ARE BIO-ACCUMULATIVE AND BUILD UP IN THE LIVER AND OVER TIME MAKE ONE SICK. A LIST OF ADJUTANTS AND INGREDIENTS IN THE VACCINE SHOULD BE PROVIDED AND BE TRANSPARENT.
Jacqueline Newman
16 September 2020 at 2:47 pm
DEFINTITELY NOT FOR ME - the fearmongering that has been put out there by the Government and social media to create this horrific panic is beyond belief. Worldwide censorship has stopped the otherside of the argument as to what a lot of harm has happened to millions of people/families; the Pharma has covered itself well - no blame or compensation can be claimed - it falls onto the shoulders of any parent/loved one who is left to deal with damage family.
Be careful, because if the carers are damaged, who will then look after the carers or their loved ones?.
Shahpari
16 September 2020 at 8:56 pm
I do NOT consent to being poised in any shape or form, with compulsory or, mandatory vaccination of any form, when no one even understand what this virus is so how can you produce a vaccine for virus you don't even understand and when you have based policies based on incorrect data from Professor Neil Fergason of Imperial College which no one bothered to even check as written in an article in The Times this week. The ingredients in vaccines make society ill, so that Big Pharma can profit and someone has obviously sold their sole to the Devil by forcing this agenda! The economy is in a shambles because of unnecessary fear mongering, people are committing suicide they can't afford to feed their children and I for one object to this forced agenda of slow "genocide" for lack of a better word just like Auschwits!
Emily
16 September 2020 at 9:28 pm
I do not consent to being forced to be vaccinated!!!!! It is RAPE! I am a Sovereign Human Being with Sovereign Rights to determine my own decisions on my bodily autonomy. I know what's best for me. I do NOT give any Government the right to determine what is best for me medically!
Olivia Kaggwa
16 September 2020 at 10:37 pm
I do not agree
Nina
17 September 2020 at 7:54 pm
I do not agree to me force to take any vaccine Covid or not No No
Shahpari
16 September 2020 at 10:49 pm
The highest authority who is answerable to us came out of the dawn of the apocolpyse that was World War II, via The Nurenberg Code which states that there is no authority whatsoever or any circumstance whatsoever who can EVER impose itself over the living his/her health even if it's the consensus of the masses. I DO NOT CONSENT!
Please can you add this to my previous objection, many thanks.
Susan Edwards 52
17 September 2020 at 10:58 pm
I don’t want to be used as a guinea pig either....
Althea Rose
18 September 2020 at 5:18 am
I don't want to be forced into taking this vaccine. I have the freedom to make my own decisions( human rights).
Mary Strugar www.strugarcentre.com
18 September 2020 at 10:30 am
Thank you Rob and all the team, you have done some very important work here and I truly hope we are heard. I have submitted today using your excellent final draft, adding the Nuremberg Code (August 1947), probably the most important document setting up the ethics of Biomedical Research 70 years ago alongside the example of GSK and their Avandia, Diabetes medication scandal where they had to pay out 3.5 billion USD plus in compensation and more importantly ruined countless lives. This was a massive failure in trust from one of the worlds largest Pharmaceutical companies.
Meleni Aldridge https://www.anhinternational.org
18 September 2020 at 11:44 am
Thanks so much Mary. We're just about to submit our response with slight modifications from our draft. Amazingly, we're on the same page and have also included reference the Nuremberg Code! Great minds and all that... :)
Warmly,
Meleni
Lee WOOD
11 September 2020 at 7:51 am
Bravo - the watchdog !
Here is another important european survey worthy of support:
https://www.internationalfreechoice.com/
Leroy Barr
15 September 2020 at 1:44 pm
No
M llewellyn
11 September 2020 at 10:06 am
This is terrifying.... completely against freedom of choice & democracy
SUZANNAH BEECHWOOD-HUNT
11 September 2020 at 1:07 pm
I second that! I feel we are in great danger!!
Let us raise our voices......!
Leroy Barr
15 September 2020 at 1:45 pm
It is dangerous.
Eugenie Verney www.eugenieverney.com
11 September 2020 at 1:34 pm
Response logged on the DHSC website — for what it's worth!
All both shocking and shockingly under-publicised — you'd almost imagine they don't want us to know what they're up to...
Thank you for all you do, as always
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
11 September 2020 at 2:37 pm
Thank you Eugenie. You're support and kind wishes are much appreciated.
Warm wishes
Melissa
Brian Steere http://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.co.uk/
11 September 2020 at 6:19 pm
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/2020/09/government-consultation-on-covid-vaccine.html
I made a copy of my short responses and put it on the link above.
Do I expect anyone to listen?
No.
Do I stand in owning my voice?
Yes.
Jennyfer Long
11 September 2020 at 7:37 pm
this certainly needs to be made clear to everyone, let's hope enough people see that as normal the government react first and don't think about the consequences. The outcome of lockdown made me realise that life is cheap in this country.
I sincerely hope enough people get to read this.
Jennyfer
Tim McCarthy
11 September 2020 at 7:50 pm
Done, I was totally honest. I hope many people manage to answer the questions, though I'm doubtful if we can have any effect on the path that the UK government and its various departments are taking. :(
Anna Watson www.arnica.org.uk
11 September 2020 at 7:54 pm
Excellent as always! Thank you very much. One other point which someone mentioned today was that we should ensure we agree to answer all 5 aspects by ticking all 5 boxes and after each response state “I reject this proposal”
Anna www.arnica.org.uk
11 September 2020 at 8:00 pm
Rejections for 1-4 but perhaps not for 5 as per your suggestions
Carole Watson
11 September 2020 at 8:02 pm
A coercive vaccination programme is not the answer to the pandemic. Choice is paramount.
Anna
12 September 2020 at 9:33 pm
Where does the consultation document propose a coercive vaccination programme?
Marcia Powell
13 September 2020 at 7:01 pm
Co receive in the fact that the end vaccinators are not registered health care professionals and may not therefore be able to give the full story, pros cons risk to benefit scientific analysis to patients as would seem informed consent . Vaccinators could even be trained by commercially interested parties and give biased info to patient
Pauline
11 September 2020 at 8:37 pm
Thank you very much for your alert, I would have never have known about it without the ANH, obviously their intention!
The whole family have logged on the DHSC website, it will probably be ignored, and I don't even think the Human Rights Act is going to get us out of this one!
Thanks for everything you do!
Tim
11 September 2020 at 8:55 pm
Thank you for your Draft Consultation Response, which is excellent and will be an enormous help in framing our own responses to the Govt's (very subdued) request for the public's views on its Consultation document on proposed Legislative changes to The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMRs) that fast-track mass vaccination using unregistered vaccines. Just two comments.
1. Like Lee Wood commented on your other article 'The Big Six Covid Misinformation' when you say in this draft article "The Government’s failure to evaluate or develop multi-lateral protocols for use on those who are seriously or critically ill with COVID-19, including the MATH+ protocol[10] being used by critical care doctors in the USA,....." wouldn't at least a reference here as well to the other mainstream (sorry, back street) medicine protocol involving mainly Hydroxychloroquine, but also zinc, azithromycin, Liposomal Vit C, Vit D and maybe a few other cheap components, which has had such success that it is being championed by the group of doctors calling itself Americas Frontline Doctors (see https://www.bitchute.com/video/EqnfxAJWa0xo/ and their new website at www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com ) and Dr Ivette Lozano in Dallas, Texas (see her brilliant speech at https://www.bitchute.com/video/ugHvxwFohJIG/ ), and for its success is being viciously suppressed by Google, Facebook, YouTube et al, be prudent ie to capture the attention of anyone like an MP who is directed by us to what you have written? Dr Simone Gold of Americas Frontline Doctors has a 'Whitepaper on Hydroxychloroquine', at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-gsn_Ye2EYDDkV_79Ag1tgUqZLNCMSt-/view , which may well be the catalyst, together with those suppressed videos, which could eventually result in the floodgates of Truth being opened, that is if just one of our mainstream newspapers can eventually be persuaded to do the right thing and broadcast the truth about this fake pandemic being perpetrated on us. What the public wants to hear from its doctors is that there are cheap protocols without side effects which have been used in many countries which, as long as you know what the initial symptoms for a bad case of Covid-19 are and take them early enough, can make you well within a few days - see Dr Lozano's speech - and that there is no need for yet another unproven vaccine stuffed with nasties the trial for which in our country has had to be halted because one of the test participants had a "serious adverse reaction" involving spinal inflammation.
2. The other big Achilles heel of this scam - sorry, mixing metaphors - which has become clearer day by day is that the RT- PCR test and the antibodies test are not fit for purpose. They do not supply the figures to support any further extension of the lockdown, social distancing etc; these tests a lot of us feel are being misused IMHO by those pushing the pandemic agenda from on high (Bill Gates, WHO etc). Dr Andrew Kaufman being interviewed by David Icke recently, see https://www.bitchute.com/video/o84w4LV6aHSG/ explains all this pretty clearly, so no need for me to elaborate. Again, if you could make slightly more of this point in the text - maybe under 1. General Comments - I think it would help those of us who get a chance to talk to an MP, or someone else important!
Tim
Tim
11 September 2020 at 9:19 pm
Melissa.
Has the ANH 'Full Draft Consultation Response' gone off yet to the Govt body that asked for public comments by 18th September? Or are you going to tweak it some more?
Tim
Meleni Aldridge https://www.anhinternational.org
11 September 2020 at 10:39 pm
Thanks Tim. Our response has not gone off yet, no. We've just published our draft and have time to make tweaks before submission next week.
Kind regards
Meleni
Lee WOOD
16 September 2020 at 2:05 pm
Important french / international resource on covid-19 treatment using chloroquine/HCQ. In english.
http://covexit.com/
Here for the 1st time Prof Christian Perronne speaks - to detail the efficacity of known 'simple' drug treatments & to expose the cartel which has blocked their usage to date. In the 2nd of the series he asserts his knowledge of inner politics at work in the WHO & BMGF. *english*
http://covexit.com/professor-christian-perronne-interview-part-1/
http://covexit.com/professor-christian-perronne-interview-part-2/
http://covexit.com/professor-christian-perronne-interview-part-3/
Herby Sibanda
15 September 2020 at 4:56 pm
No to coronavirus vaccines
Lorna Craig
17 September 2020 at 7:42 pm
no to unlicensed drugs
Tim
11 September 2020 at 9:39 pm
Melissa.
Apologies. the new website address for Americas Frontline Doctors was hacked or something and they have set up again under this address - AmericasFrontlineDoctorsSummit.com
Tim
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
12 September 2020 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for letting us know Tim.
Warm regards
Melissa
Ann- Marie
12 September 2020 at 12:57 pm
This is vitally important
Christine
12 September 2020 at 4:07 pm
I'm so sad...... American front line doctors have put their videos on BRANDNEWTUBE. Uncensored unlike Youtube. Plus, look at Orthomolecular Medicine website. Plus Doctoryourself.com Vitamin C protocol for Flu used in China and proved to work by American Doctor who worked in hospital after being stranded in China at lockdown. 50 tons of Ascorbic acid was donated to China by a Dutch Company.
See research.
Christine
12 September 2020 at 4:10 pm
We are becoming USA. Even Donald Trump is fighting the pharmaceutical companies.
Anton
18 September 2020 at 9:28 pm
The world is a stage. We are all actors, knowingly or not. He knows and is playing his part, for better or worse. He's currently playing a white hat and will swap to wearing a black hat when he is told to play by his Master. The sooner folk realise the world is literally a stage, the better.
Pete
12 September 2020 at 4:45 pm
Absolute lunacy I say no to unlicensed vaccines especially after all the lies and manipulation of figures....
Dr Neil Milliken
12 September 2020 at 7:57 pm
As a practising Edinburgh trained doctor,& nutritional therapist,I will be refusing any dubiously ineffective vaccine containing potential nasties, & possible communicable retroviruses. I would rather be struck of by the GMC, than injure my patients( as MMR & HPV cervical cancer ones have undoubtedly done, but suppressed by sadly unevolved doctors stuck in their ivory towers) ; conditioned like sheep blindly obeying rigid pre-planned protocols to be followed, not to think,& playing God on the sole basis of a limited self-assumed sense of superiority as to what's best for others,& wanting to believe all scientific studies couldn't possibly be biased. I didn't get into one of the oldest & most famous medical schools in the world to turn my back on integrity. Our grandchildren will rue the day when tunnelled aspirations and chemical concoctions for profit, are laid bare to scrutiny in the hereafter
Darren
16 November 2020 at 2:53 am
Can I ask what’s the general thoughts in the medical world and your colleagues on this new vaccine?
I am in the U.K. and we are staring down the barrel off this very soon,and me personally I think this is suicide if anyone takes this rushed long term untested vaccine.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 November 2020 at 11:04 am
Hi Darren, thank you for your question. We published an article discussing the Pfizer vaccine last week, which will you some thoughts and information - https://www.anhinternational.org/news/premature-and-presumptuous-pfizer-vaccine-publicity/.
We will continue to comment and share information as we go forward.
Warm regards
Melissa
Alexandrina Stubbs
12 September 2020 at 8:22 pm
Please, we need to understand this golden rush stated in 1999 and Fauci, Gates and WHO are in conjunctional crime , genocide since then. Our herbalist or naturopath cannot recommend a mint tea without breaking Fraiser act/1910, but they can give us an unlicensed genetical vaccine (DNA, RNA)????? Just remember, the old form of vaccines have not been based on chimeric genetic material manipulation. What is happening now is the most horrible crime at many levels. Please search; do not accept. Death is happening at a very higher rate because of cancer or diabetes or depression and nobody is rushing to declare a pandemic for them. This is gold or death: depends on which part of the fence we/them are.
Alexandra Cook
12 September 2020 at 11:20 pm
This is absolutely terrifying! What in God's name is wrong with this sick, fecked-up world? Unlicensed vaccines? Unlicensed administrators? God-knows-whar reactions to the drug? I say HELL, NO!! We are not guinea pigs for testing - and nobody with any morality would even do this to a guinea pig!!
Val May
15 September 2020 at 2:14 pm
You are so right. This is very depressing. But what to do?
Karen Thorpe
15 September 2020 at 10:58 pm
You are so right! They have lost their moral compass entirely! This is terrifying!
Michelle hughes
12 September 2020 at 11:29 pm
I do not agree to this no unlicensed vaccine is going any where near me
Metron Zinyemba
13 September 2020 at 12:00 pm
Choice is and should be at the top and front of every decision. God has given humanity choice to choose to obey his ten commandments or to obey the devil by breaking all God's 10 commandments. If God our Father and creator has given everyone a choice. Tell me Why on earth would anyone in their right mind force these v fake vaccines ever on humanity. WHY?????
Jay
13 September 2020 at 12:43 pm
Are you going to start a petition or how do we the public contribute to stopping what the government wants to do?
Roma Swaine
18 September 2020 at 11:31 am
I was wondering about a petition also is there one or how do we start one
Kenneth Giles https://www.anhinternational.org/news/uk-law-changes-for-covid-19-mass-vaccination/?utm_source=The+Alliance+for+Natural+Health&utm_campaign=707f1c2d7c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_10_09_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aea8a87544-707f1c2d7c-84974825
13 September 2020 at 3:35 pm
I am not in favour of any government backed programme which makes vaccination of any sort mandatory.
Laureen
14 September 2020 at 3:39 pm
Agree with the above, this should be on Change.org for more support. Thank you ANH
Emma
13 September 2020 at 3:57 pm
Thank you for all the amazing work you are doing!
Ulrtike Schade
13 September 2020 at 6:01 pm
Long live freedom of choice! Let those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccine and do not force it upon those of us who don't.
Andrea
17 September 2020 at 3:10 am
No I am not having this vaccine. And even NHS medics have said this is not safe. And also it should not be administered by no medical staff or anybody. I am not having this or any vaccine. If anyone knocks on my door I will get the Police or call my solicitor and have them arrested for harassment. Fuck Off with your vacine Boris.
Geoffrey Fields
13 September 2020 at 6:12 pm
I thought of the polio first vaccine when I heard about this. Not only is it wrong to give vaccination without going through all checks but it is morally wrong to let the drug companies make all the profit and not to be liable for any compensation which is against all that has been fought for
Michelle Harrod Caplat
13 September 2020 at 9:58 pm
Absolutely terrifying. This cannot be allowed to happen. It's so irresponsible and leaves everyone vulnerable without any recall of it goes horribly wrong.... We're not an experiment and shouldn't be treated like we are
Annie
13 September 2020 at 10:28 pm
Thanks so much for all your hard work! I am very grateful for this. I cannot sleep well with this worrying situation.
Best wishes
Annie
Annie
13 September 2020 at 10:36 pm
Annie
Should we mention the Nuremberg Code or has it been changed recently?
Thanks
Annie
Annie Sebastian
14 September 2020 at 8:17 am
This is against freedom of choice, and beliefs.
Barbara Falcone
14 September 2020 at 10:05 am
Long live freedom of choice! Let those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccine and do not force it upon those of us who don't..
FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
I rather take my chances with covid than the Vaccin
Melani Bairstow
14 September 2020 at 10:39 am
I just can’t find the link where I need to register!! Maybe cause I’m in a panic mode. But can anyone help please?
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
14 September 2020 at 1:55 pm
Hello Melani
This is the link to submit a response to the government's consultation - https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f.
Warm regards
Melissa
Satish Lad N/A
14 September 2020 at 12:18 pm
It's just far too risky. Much more testing needs to be done before releasing to the public.
There's ZERO RISK to the suppliers but huge risk to the public.
MY MOTHER TOOK THIS DRUG AND MY OLDER BROTHER WAS BORN THALIDOMIDE: NOT TESTED PROPERLY.
Thalidomide is a drug that was developed in the 1950s by the West German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grünenthal GmbH. It was originally intended as a sedative or tranquiliser, but was soon used for treating a wide range of other conditions, including colds, flu, nausea and morning sickness in pregnant women.
Usha Lad
14 September 2020 at 12:28 pm
This cannot be allowed to happen. Taking the a vaccine that's been rushed through is absolutely ludicrous.
This is shocking beyond belief.
Governments used to say smoking wasn't a risk to health even though doctors were crying out with proof.
Who benefits the most from this vaccination process?
Sarah
14 September 2020 at 1:26 pm
I'd like to thank you wholeheartedly for what you are doing.
Eoghan O'Brien
14 September 2020 at 3:59 pm
The MHRA document refers repeatedly to safety, quality & efficacy - not effectiveness.
Efficacy can be defined as the performance of an intervention under ideal and controlled circumstances, whereas effectiveness refers to its performance under 'real-world' conditions.
Trials focus on efficacy even though they should be aiming for effectiveness.
Could be worth flagging.
Well done on raising awareness on this, guys. I'd have missed it otherwise.
Mike Meehan
14 September 2020 at 4:31 pm
Vaccines must remain VOLUNTARY : I WILL NOT ALLOW ANY MANDATE TO BREACH MY SOVEREIGN & NATURAL RIGHTS
Karen Thorpe
15 September 2020 at 11:04 pm
I absolutely agree that vaccines must remain voluntary, but what about all the innocent children? Especially those who are in care, who do not have a voice? It is extremely disturbing and worrying.
Mrs Shirley Welch
14 September 2020 at 4:58 pm
Unbelievable that this is happening. However, only have to see what is happening in the USA to realize that it IS happening.
Hardly a consultation programme when virtually nobody knows of its existence. Thank goodness a friend sent me the link. It should have been sent to every home in the UK for a proper consultation.
Thank you INH International for all you are doing to keep us informed of the truth
Amanda
14 September 2020 at 6:43 pm
No No No No No....I dont want a vaccine forced upon me...I dont have the flu one and I am and have been fine. I am 59 years old and if you take care of your immune system you should be just fine. I dont trust what they may put in them in the first place...why arnt they taking notice of the HCQ+zinc...mmm just not enough money in it. Didnt Bill Gates fund the Oxford vaccine research?? NO THANK YOU
Jim Park
14 September 2020 at 7:54 pm
Everything I read shows the measures in the proposed solutions to be hundreds of times worse than the problem. As a sane healthy human I do not consent to any of the proposed changes to vaccination laws, provision, or administration. GET BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND THINK ABOUT HEALTH BENEFITS FOR THE POPULATION and not the quickest way you can foist untried vaccines on the public.
Anna w
14 September 2020 at 9:41 pm
My body my choice.
Why Gov want to make choices for me since when they are care about my health .
I don't want take any vacancies ...
If other people want to take here you go but don't make me to take it.
Janet
14 September 2020 at 9:56 pm
Thank you for all your hard work in keeping us informed.
Anna
14 September 2020 at 10:20 pm
I will never allow to injure myself and my household by injecting the poison into our bodies. It is our God given right to decide about our bodies. Its not government job to protect people's health, its government job to protect people's basic human rights. If they fail to do so, they need to go....
Kathryn Facebook
15 September 2020 at 9:33 am
My body. My choice.
Lucy Smith
15 September 2020 at 9:56 am
mass vaccination is absolutely not needed. People should have a choice. You are taking away our rights and freedoms. We have an immune system for a reason. NO to vaccines .
Philip Dawes
15 September 2020 at 9:59 am
I do not accept any of the government's proposed changes to the law relating to medicines, and in particular, giving legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers for malpractice resulting in the death of and injuries to citizens as a consequence of their toxic vaccines. .
Audrey Fearless
15 September 2020 at 11:16 am
I will not be a Guinea pig to a vaccine that has not been tested, for the years that vaccine are usually tested for, what is really behind this, the government want to take away our human rights in a minute, when many fought and die for this, it's my body and we have a choice, the government are put in place to protect the people not sell them for their own interests.
Iria Kreutz-Schiller www.thenaturalpharmacie.co.uk
15 September 2020 at 1:30 pm
I don't agree with mass vaccination in particular not with a vaccine that has not been proven to be safe.
Anna K
18 September 2020 at 6:13 pm
No vax ever has been proven safe effective.
Mary Evangelene Modeste
15 September 2020 at 1:30 pm
I will NOT be used as a guniea pig, neither my children or Grandchildren, i Object strongly to this Vaccine being used on people
Heather
15 September 2020 at 2:21 pm
I wholeheartedly disagree with mass vaccination that the government is seeking to implement.
Freedom of choice still stands.
Diana Aldridge Alliance for Natural Health
15 September 2020 at 2:23 pm
I absolutely do not agree with this mass vaccination program with a fast tracked vaccine. I have absolutely no confidence or trust in the decisions made by the so called experts advising this government on what is best for our health! Or the new laws they wish to implement.
Patrick
15 September 2020 at 2:28 pm
I do not accept any of the government's proposed changes to the law relating to medicines, and in particular, giving legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers for malpractice resulting in the death of and injuries to citizens as a consequence of their toxic vaccines. All politicians who believe this is such a great idea should have themselves and entire families as Guinea pigs for the first 24 months before considering rolling out to the general public.
Greg
15 September 2020 at 2:46 pm
I will not be taking part in any vaccinations that haven't been tested abundantly!! I and my family will not be guinea pigs for the government. It is my human right to decline to have any substance put in my body that I dont wish to. My answer is NO!!
Damien Mannix
15 September 2020 at 4:37 pm
I am not anti-vaccine but I am anti-lies and deception. Was it not a major drug company president who said that Covid-19 'is a massive commercial opportunity' or something similar? My interest is in the publics health not their shareholders!
Without the full and honest facts from those for and against any type of medicine I demand the right to say NO.
Deano
15 September 2020 at 5:23 pm
In any other industry, if I'd ordered a product to the tune of millions of pounds, and THEN consulted the public as to whether they should be used, I would be sacked on the spot!
Sam Cudjoe-Opoku
15 September 2020 at 5:37 pm
As a family we have tastes and preferences and it seems our Rights and Freedom are being taking away which shouldn't be.
We absolutely not agreed to this so called fast track vaccinations and the decisions made by so called experts advising the government this way. Our God knows what is right for His children and therefore, endowed in us the anti-bodies. We say 'NO' to the vaccines.
Paul
15 September 2020 at 5:50 pm
No to allowing distribution of unlicensed vaccine. Appalling proposal.
Carmen
15 September 2020 at 5:55 pm
I do not give consent for me or my family to be subjected to a unlicensed vaccine. I will nor take part in this that could potentially cause me harm in the long term.
Sarah
15 September 2020 at 7:03 pm
Absolutely disagree and don’t want mass vaccinations and will not be taking part in anything. Disagree with people being used as guinea pigs.
Thinks it’s all totally wrong. Can’t enforce people to be vaccinated either.
Craig Holder
15 September 2020 at 7:13 pm
My Comments:
Temporary Authorisation...
Licensing is the main method of risk mitigation for all medical treatments - if we accept one unlicensed treatment then we might as well accept all treatments as who says one is safe and effective and not another.
If all of the safeguards will still be in place then why not just licence it.
If there are steps in the licensing process that are unnecessary why not just permanently remove those steps.
Given the potential increased risk there should be a safeguard put in place to avoid mandatory vaccination or any kind discrimination against those who choose not to take in this increased risk.
Vaccine Promotion...
Advertising is likely to present a one sided view of the unlicensed treatment and allow manufacturers to promote an increased fear and discriminatory messages in order to increase sales.
If the demand for the treatment is not sufficient without advertising then It may be better not to provide it at all.
It would not be in the public interest to allow privet businesses to persuade people that a treatment, that if harmful would not allow for any legal recourse, is morally required.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 8:10 am
Thank you for your comments and support Craig. If you haven't already done so it would be great if you could also send your comments to the UK Government via its consultation form. It's very straightforward and only takes a couple of minutes - https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f. The more people who send comments via the consultation form the better so the government receives direct feedback evidencing the strength of feeling against the proposed changes.
Warm regards
Melissa
Catherine Holder
15 September 2020 at 7:18 pm
My Comments:
About Temporary Authorisation...
I feel that Licensing is the main method of risk mitigation for all medical treatments - when we accept one unlicensed treatment then we might as well accept all treatments as who says one is safe and effective and not another.
If all of the safeguards will still be in place then why can it not be licence?
Given the potential increased risk there should be a safeguard put in place to avoid mandatory vaccination of any kind as it is discrimination against those who choose not to take in this increased risk.
I thought we lived in a free country ?
Vaccine Promotion...
Advertising is likely to present a one sided view of the unlicensed treatment and allow manufacturers and media to promote an increased fear and discriminatory messages in order to increase sales.
If the demand for the treatment is not sufficient without advertising then It may be better not to provide it at all.
It would not be in the public interest to allow private businesses to persuade people that a treatment, that if harmful would not allow for any legal recourse, is morally required.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 8:10 am
Thank you for your comments and support Catherine. If you haven't already done so it would be great if you could also send your comments to the UK Government via its consultation form. It's very straightforward and only takes a couple of minutes - https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f. The more people who send comments via the consultation form the better so the government receives direct feedback evidencing the strength of feeling against the proposed changes.
Warm regards
Melissa
karen staddon
15 September 2020 at 7:37 pm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Barb Scott
15 September 2020 at 8:12 pm
We need more information and more autonomy before this can come anywhere near being accepted.
Jacqueline hegarty Facebook
15 September 2020 at 8:20 pm
I do not consent
Cherneese Gillespie
15 September 2020 at 8:30 pm
The fact that this has been sneakily rushed in without FULLY informing the general public through social media/leaflets to make a thorough formed decision is an absolute shambles! I have a right to decide what I put into my body NO ONE ELSE! I do not consent to this madness and this should NOT be made to go ahead!
Susannah
15 September 2020 at 8:56 pm
I used to work as a microbiologist and know that cold viruses have many strains, so how many vaccines will you give people? Covid-19, 20 or another strain that may outbreak?
Can you guarantee the immune response won’t be adverse or have other effects on offspring (unborn child) for example?
My response is an unreserved NO
....and I hate needles.
Andrew Hague
15 September 2020 at 8:59 pm
For sonething that there is no proof,not isolated,not purified, according to kochs postulate.i dont want any toxic poison in me,there is absolutley no proof these work but there is absolutley concrete evidence vaccines KILL,and this is a breach of our absolute rights and section 6 a war crime Nuremberg. Absolutely not i would rather die.
S Godwin Ms
15 September 2020 at 9:17 pm
I do not give my permission or want any mandatory vaccinations or experiments carried out on any subject, young old infirm middle aged living in the UK. I do not agree with any of this at all.
Michelle Valerio
16 September 2020 at 1:31 am
You are highlighting matters that should be of greatest concern to all our citizens. The deregulation of the current law, lack of transparacy around these vaccines and threat to our lives humanity and liberty is now the most important issue of our times. You have my full support and for your constructive research and raising of the real concerns throughout this pandemic. Strength will come in waking people up and reclaiming our rights at law and our freedom.
Frenna Trotman
15 September 2020 at 9:27 pm
It is impossible to properly adequately safety test any new vaccine or medicine in such a short time frame, so I do not consent to this bill.
Safety tests should be done against an actual placebo not another pharmaceutical product.
Companies producing any medicine or vaccine must not be given immunity of prosecution. This allows financial considerations to diminish health as the priority.
Advertising as allowed in the U.S.A must not be allowed in the U.K. No coercion of any nature should be used in the promotion of any medicine or vaccine.
It is the right of all citizens to decide if they wish to partake or not of any median or vaccine, the right to refuse must be satrosanct and there MUST be NO penalties or restriction of civil liberties for any person who chooses not to take any medication or vaccine. U.K. citizens must have FREEDOM over the welfare our own bodies and that of our children to deprive a citizen of this fundamental right would be the ultimate tyranny of ANY government therefore this Bill MUST BE WITHDRAWN
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 8:11 am
Thank you for your comments and support Frenna. If you haven't already done so it would be great if you could also send your comments to the UK Government via its consultation form. It's very straightforward and only takes a couple of minutes - https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f. The more people who send comments via the consultation form the better so the government receives direct feedback evidencing the strength of feeling against the proposed changes.
Warm regards
Melissa
Sigrid
15 September 2020 at 10:14 pm
I strongly disagree with the Dept of Health seeking to use us as lab rats for their non-licensed Big Pharma vaccinations versus the Wuhan or any other flu virus and even refusing to be liable. Instead I would recommend spending the money on HIgh Dose IV Vit C protocol or hydrochloroquine treatmemt and immune system enhancements such as Vit D3 optimisation administered by healthcare professionals.
A Johnson
15 September 2020 at 10:33 pm
Covid 19 is not a natural virus. It was made in a lab it has a patent. It was released deliberately.
All laboratory creation of viruses with the the intent to harm people should be banned. (All biological weapons)
This is not a genuine pandemic. Figures are too low.
All people should have freedom of choice with regard to taking vaccines including childhood vaccines. They can cause autism paralysis ADHD they also predispose to cancers.
We are also aware that RNA containing viruses and vaccines can permanently damage human DNA. They can also target people or races to cause harm or shorten life. An electronic chip in the vaccine could lead to permanent mental health damage with no known recovery
Enforced vaccines are dangerous to human life
Enforced vaccines are an infringement of human rights
Sharon Wakeham
15 September 2020 at 11:00 pm
No I do not consent. It is our choice, our body, our freedom....NOT NOW NOT EVER
julieanne Tulley
16 September 2020 at 12:28 am
Totally against any mass vaccine. People should have choice.not to mention my philosophical beliefs would be infringed.
Sally Phillips
16 September 2020 at 12:51 am
I do not consent to any vaccine covid19 or any other.
This bill should be withdrawn it is against our human rights.
As a citizen of the United kingdom.
Victoria Lake
16 September 2020 at 1:30 am
I am horrified that the United Kingdom would rush through a vaccine without thorough testing and, force people who have the right to choose what does and does not go into their body and, that is before we discuss the fact there is suggestion of non trained people giving this vaccine.
I do not support this change in British Law.
I have a right to make an informed decision as does all other people in this country.
Do thorough testing, permit people to choose.
Kelly
16 September 2020 at 1:30 am
I do not consent.
Neil Phillips
16 September 2020 at 1:33 am
This is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways I find it difficult to believe the government of this country is considering such a move. Yet here we are. The death toll from COVID-19, when compared to previous and regular flu outbreaks, in no way warrants the extreme measures proposed. Ultimately it would be a gross infringement of human rights - what gets injected into ME can only happen with MY approval - and there is NO WAY I would accept the mandatory injection of an experimental vaccine which has not been properly tested, for a 'disease' with an extremely low fatality rate.
THINK AGAIN, SCRAP THE BILL - it has no place in a democracy. Or are we suddenly no longer living in one?
Kay
16 September 2020 at 2:46 am
The whole country on clinical trial? This dystopian bill must be thrown out!
Leely Brett
16 September 2020 at 5:59 am
Please DO NOT CHANGE THE MEDICINE LAW in British or in Any Part of the world...., just to open the DOOR for DISASTER to human health as well as giving consent to SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE TO HAVE A TOTAL CONTROL of individual identification to be collected ELECTRONICALLY (Read God's WORD from the Book of Revelation Chapter 13 about the Mark of The BEAST: the "666" Computer Code to control people universally)... The Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ is Coming Back Soon, Amen
Chrissy Hollinshead
16 September 2020 at 7:45 am
I think the comment from a well educated colleague of mine when i sent her the government link to comment about their vaccine proposals says it all about the government's handling, style and mind poisening- 'Sorry Chrissy I think this is not a genuine site (the government link for comments) it is badly written, poor English and the content looks wrong. Soi won't be signing this.'
It is horrifying that we've been lied to and misled so much that we'r don't know what to believe soi we naturally take the easiest belief - why would the government want to hurt us, it's not true - because that's what we want to believe. There are lengthy answers to the question, but in short it's about money. That's went the government are abandoning us to the pharmaceuticals.
Kaye
16 September 2020 at 8:09 am
Absolutely disagree and don’t want mass vaccinations and will not be taking part in anything. Disagree with people being used as guinea pigs.
Thinks it’s all totally wrong. Can’t enforce people to be vaccinated either.
Izabel
16 September 2020 at 10:10 am
I signed this petition. As we all stand in our power uniting together, they will not be able to ignore us no more.
Patricia Bishop
16 September 2020 at 10:41 am
I do not agree that the vaccine developers should be able to non-libale for any damage that they product causes, particularly when they have not tested properly. There should be NO enforcement of vaccinations for anything.
We need to rethink the children vaccinations programmes also. No mandatory vaccinations and no enfored exclusions because someone is not vaccinated.
Men, women and their offspring are sovereign! The state does not have jurisdiction or power over them.
Laurence Hearn
16 September 2020 at 11:25 am
Absolutely NO to any vaccine and all government policy regarding covid / coronavirus. Absolutely NO to any restrictions of freedom or choice to those who refuse vaccines
Heather Bowden
16 September 2020 at 11:33 am
I have used your excellent responses and submitted them exactly as written. I was pleased that it took just a few minutes to put it into the form provided. Your work in this and many other areas is extremely valuable as you manage to distil very complex information into a very readable form for people such as myself. I am very well informed about vaccines, but not about legislation so this document was much appreciated. Thank you so much for all you do.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 4:19 pm
That's great Heather. Thanks for letting us know.
Warm regards
Melissa
Aquarius www.raysofwisdom.com
16 September 2020 at 1:26 pm
Thank you for drawing this to our attention. I have always believed that the driving force of the pandemic is the pharmaceutical industry and the professional troublemakers and scaremongers employed by them. If they think that this time they have hit the jackpot, when the previous attempts of the bird flu, swine flu and the Ebola outbreak eventually fizzled out. Their behaviour is not in keeping with the Zeitgeist of the Aquarian age. The Highest Forces of life will soon show them who is in charge of us and our world. If that sounds interesting, please take at look at the following:
‘To Jab Or Not To Jab’ = https://www.booksie.com/615373-to-jab-or-not-to-jab
Thank you for your efforts of bringing the pandemic to is natural and yes, happy ending - soon!
Philip Dinning
16 September 2020 at 1:52 pm
I do agree with this big pharma drive to have all vaccinated. We should have the right to choose
Kaye https://www.bewleybooks.com
16 September 2020 at 2:08 pm
I've created a video and shared it to as many YT and FB groups as I can with your links and the DoH links to the survey.
https://youtu.be/WoL9iLY1q0k
Hope this helps.
And thank you for all the good work you do.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 2:58 pm
Thank you for your support Kaye.
Warm regards
Melissa
Vinden Grace
16 September 2020 at 2:48 pm
Responded.
Thanks for your work.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 4:18 pm
Great, thanks for letting us know Vinden.
Warm regards
Melissa
Dan
16 September 2020 at 3:38 pm
Thank you very much. I have used your full draft, and noted the source (yourselves) and that I submit it as an indivdual as it represents my position precisely.
Best Regards,
Dan.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 4:19 pm
Wonderful, thanks for letting us know Dan.
Warm regards
Melissa
Malcolm Down
16 September 2020 at 4:19 pm
Thanks for the vital information. I've commented on the government website as guided.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
16 September 2020 at 7:30 pm
Lovely, thanks for letting us know Malcolm.
Warm regards
Melissa
Jennifer
16 September 2020 at 5:00 pm
No I will not be a guinea pig for any vaccines including ones for the Coronavirus.
ann James
16 September 2020 at 7:01 pm
II DO NOT AGREE
Natalie
16 September 2020 at 8:41 pm
I do not agree
Maureen Prince
16 September 2020 at 9:22 pm
I do not consent.
Helen Eagan
16 September 2020 at 9:44 pm
I think this is totally wrong. We should all be able to have control of what we feel is right for us and not be forced into anything against our will. Thank you for all you are doing.
Simon
16 September 2020 at 9:46 pm
I do not agree with the proposed mass vaccination. I don’t want to be used as a guinea pig. I want the right to say no.
isla May N/A
17 September 2020 at 8:55 am
I state No to all. Choice about having the vaccine is vital to each and every individual. Taking that away infringing basic rights to choice and restrictions freedoms. Totally no to forcing a vaccine on a hoax covid is senseless and threating these taht WILL choose not to is inmoral and Universally injust. NO TO ANY TYPE OF VACCINE FOR COVID 19 AND THE FLU. IT IS DANGEROUS TO US.
Tim
16 September 2020 at 9:47 pm
Aha. Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5teMsw2h4&ab_channel=ThisMorning
Sky News in Australia is naming and shaming the individuals in high places who are publicly telling lies about one of the main remedies, Hydroxychloroquine, that tests have proved is effective in treating Covid-19 if given early in combination with zinc and other drugs or Vitamins. If more public news channels get shamed by this going viral into doing a public 180 degree turn on the misinformation that they have been spewing out todate maybe the global Plandemic House of Cards will soon collapse.
Sita
16 September 2020 at 9:55 pm
I do not agree ,This is is ridiculous to force innocent people .No to vaccine
Dorothy Casserley
16 September 2020 at 10:00 pm
NO to any vaccine and to all the government policies regarding Covid/ Coronavirus.
NO to any freedom restrictions or choice to anyone who refuses the vaccines.
Where has our freedom gone?????
TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
Katrina Brown
16 September 2020 at 10:14 pm
I do not give my consent
William
17 September 2020 at 7:30 am
I do not give my consent
Jenifer
17 September 2020 at 7:59 am
I definitely do not give consent...
This is outrageous what our government are planning to do!
It’s underhanded and disingenuous.
Gareth Thomas www.energymedicineinternational.com
17 September 2020 at 8:24 am
I do not consent!
Jane Pearce
17 September 2020 at 8:47 am
NO... not happy with you offering an unlicensed product that will not be administered by a Health care professional. This has to be done PROPERLY, don’t change the long fought after rules because it benefits the government and pharmaceutical companies. Put the public FIRST for once.
Verity Anderson
17 September 2020 at 9:00 am
Thank you for sharing; this is TRUE journalism and I can only speculate why this information is not headline news considering we live in such a free and democratic country... ahem.
I do not give my consent and refuse to blindly hand responsibility for my body over to anyone. I alone have authority over my body.
Jayne Meek
17 September 2020 at 9:01 am
I do not agree with compulsory vaccinations.
Mohammed aslam
17 September 2020 at 9:08 am
This is wrong very very wrong you taking our freedom
Kenneth Moraldo
17 September 2020 at 9:34 am
No. I am not in agreement with the mass vaccination
Sheena Walker-smith Facebook
17 September 2020 at 9:54 am
I I DONOT consent
Jaycey
17 September 2020 at 10:34 am
I am NOT happy and I do NOT agree with this at all.
I am not having a vaccine that is full of risk factors. Absolute joke that this is even being considered.
No thank you.
Milda
17 September 2020 at 10:52 am
No no no stop this we are not your guinnie pigsty iton you self's not us.
Gilly Freeman
17 September 2020 at 11:15 am
I would never consent to an untested vaccine that has been rushed through for a virus with less than .2% mortality rate. Vaccines normally take a minimum of 5 years to develop. This one cannot have been properly tested, & the producers of it get immunity from prosecution & culpability if anything goes wrong. This is madness, especially with so many positive tests which implies that people now have antibodies which, as far as I understand, means a vaccine is unnecessary. It seems to me that there is another agenda which is being played out. It's time for full disclosure.
Belinda Jones
17 September 2020 at 11:38 am
I done not consent to any vaccination. I am not happy with government offering an unlicensed product. There should not be any changes to the rules or policies on vaccination. No vaccination on the market as been proven to be safe or effective. Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc at the early stages have been more effective. Hydroxychloroquine has been around for 70 years.
Fiona www.fionajack.life
17 September 2020 at 12:01 pm
I do NOT consent to any vaccination.
Suzanne
17 September 2020 at 12:23 pm
I do not consent to any vaccination
Nicola Sacks
17 September 2020 at 12:31 pm
I do NOT consent to any vaccination unless it has gone through the correct testing developed over the correct number of years and proven to be 100% safe and effective.
Shirley smith
17 September 2020 at 12:38 pm
I do not consent to this vaccine. We are not guinea pigs and there’s a reason these protective laws are in place to prevent further harmful drugs/vaccines harming our health!
jules
17 September 2020 at 12:50 pm
You ain't sticking any shit in MY body without MY CONSENT...which I don't give you
Mary simms None
17 September 2020 at 1:12 pm
I am totally against these vaccines.
What happened to people’s human rights!
Absolute atrocity. Yes
Polly
17 September 2020 at 1:32 pm
Absolutely no way do I consent to this vaccine
Clinton Bell Facebook
17 September 2020 at 1:38 pm
I do not consent to the rollout of unlicensed #vaccines. And I see no need for this rushing out of Covid 19 untested vaccines.
Tania
17 September 2020 at 2:02 pm
I do not consent to the distributing of vaccines and treatments for covid-19 and flu. We should not be treated as guinea pigs.
Hassan alliance for natural health
17 September 2020 at 2:46 pm
Thank you for sight of your draft.
It's a capital NO from me. Therefore in against of such undemocratic vaccine roll out by the government. - it is illogical, autocratic and insane for any Democratic government (UK, especially) to do such thing
Tim
17 September 2020 at 3:32 pm
Very important: At this link https://youtu.be/8UvFhIFzaac ["Viral Issue Crucial Update Sept 8th: the Science, Logic and Data Explained!" by Ivor Cummins] there is a very thorough easy to understand analysis of the statistics of the Covid-19 epidemic to date, which enables us to draw conclusions regarding what interventions by politicians over the past months - lockdown, masks, social distancing etc - have been entirely misplaced. As far as I can tell, it's totally objective. If for any reason YouTube objects to it and cancels it before you have a chance to take a look, let me know as I downloaded and saved it. I'm sending it to my MP today together with my (ANH assisted) reply to the Govt's questionnaire.
Amy tattershall
17 September 2020 at 3:45 pm
I do not consent!!!
Jill leigh
17 September 2020 at 4:10 pm
I totally disagree with this change in Law. No 9ne should be forced a medical procedure. Consent is consistent with basic human rights. These rights must be protrcted and if neseccary fought for.
Mr. B.S.Patel google
17 September 2020 at 4:10 pm
I do not agree with the proposed mass vaccination. I don’t want to be used as a guinea pig. I want the right to say no.
Frances
17 September 2020 at 4:12 pm
How does anyone have a say if they don’t have the internet, or are not tech minded like my 85 year old mum and many others
Julian
17 September 2020 at 4:25 pm
Is there a way to vote for this?
Because it's a national security and health issue, it should be a referendum - sometimes this is a stupid idea because people are mis-informed my media.
Can you make a way to gather signatures so, it will go to public debate?
Pam Temel
17 September 2020 at 5:15 pm
Anyone who wants to be injected with an unlicensed vaccine must be mad, the answer is no, never.
Sharon
17 September 2020 at 5:24 pm
Say no to mass vaccination!!!
C.G. Google
17 September 2020 at 5:26 pm
My right . My body. My life. No.
Sophie Smith
17 September 2020 at 5:51 pm
I do not consent!
Ray Edmunds
17 September 2020 at 5:58 pm
Filled in the goverment form in simple and sweet No so difficult on phone to email MP will try and do on pc later not a happy bunny I voted for Boris as he was the best of a bad bunch I feel ashamed to admit it with every thing going on and this back door trickery
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
17 September 2020 at 6:22 pm
Thanks for your support and for making a submission to the consultation Ray. Do please let us know what response you receive from your MP when you contact them.
Warm regards
Melissa
Barbara Codling Google
17 September 2020 at 6:45 pm
I do not consent to the law being changed so that a vaccine can be used unchecked and unsafe. How do we know what is happening to our vote as most of the population will be against this, the figures are already out there.
Aga
17 September 2020 at 7:57 pm
I do not agree with the proposed mass vaccination. I don’t want to be used as a guinea pig. I want the right to say no.
Barbara Chiesa
17 September 2020 at 8:17 pm
My body my choice. No way the government or anybody else can decide what I inject in my body.
GERMAINE MCMICHAEL
17 September 2020 at 8:53 pm
I do not consent to the law being changed to pass an unchecked vaccine ...
Susanne Alys
17 September 2020 at 9:02 pm
My whole life has been ruined by vaccination damage!! I most certainly do not consent to the law being changed to accommodate the biggest business in the world - drugs! No vaccine should be on the market without all the legally required tests. Shame on any government even considering something so dangerous to their people.
Jane Phillips
17 September 2020 at 9:25 pm
I do not consent to the law being changed to make any vaccine mandatory....this would be equivalent to rape......any proposed vaccine needs long term safety testing against a placebo.....this has never been done for any other vaccine
Geri
17 September 2020 at 9:48 pm
I do not consent the supposed cure will be fa4 worse than the virus which was downgraded to a flu by CDC in MARCH. thank you for standing up to this ridiculous proposal ☘️
Sharon Robinson google
17 September 2020 at 10:03 pm
There is no way that I agree to this and the fact that if this vaccine cause death or other wise no one can be held liable. The Prime Minister and all those who support this with their family should be up first for these vaccine
patience
17 September 2020 at 10:12 pm
I do not consent.
Nicole
17 September 2020 at 10:24 pm
I do not trust this unlicensed vaccine & who could after the pure lies & lunacy of the guidelines from our government . So sad that people think that this government cares about there health I don’t understand why everyone is not shouting from the rooftops the answer is no to this madness
Adrian Jones
17 September 2020 at 10:40 pm
I do not consent.
Paula Farrelly
17 September 2020 at 10:40 pm
I do not consent
Aaron Farrelly Jones
17 September 2020 at 10:41 pm
I do not consent.
Luke Farrelly Jones
17 September 2020 at 10:41 pm
I do not consent
Lauren Farrelly Jones
17 September 2020 at 10:42 pm
I do not consent
Peter O'Neill
17 September 2020 at 11:08 pm
I do not consent to mandatory vaccines by the British government, the murdering bastards. I object to British rule in Ireland, collusion with loyalist terrorists & I refuse to bow down to laws passed through to assist the global corporate elite, the Bilderbergs & the New World Order. This is an enfringement of my human rights. We haven't gone away you know.
Lucy
17 September 2020 at 11:19 pm
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Given the central importance of the advice of Professor Neil Ferguson of
Imperial college in this situation, it is inexplicable that he was selected to
project manage the research and provide guidance to the government on a
matter which has gone on to affect so many.
The paper he produced in relation to this pandemic received no peer
review from the international scientific community, a fact which the former
director of the CDC, Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most
senior epidemiologists, (advisor to the Swedish Government, the first Chief
Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an
advisor to the director general of the WHO) articulated as being
‘unprecedented’.
All Virus statistics are flawed, therefore any measures flowing from those data are erroneous without merit and void. Any enforcement of measures could be construed as unconscionable.
EQUITY ACTS IN PERSONAM.
Paul Knowles
17 September 2020 at 11:22 pm
Thank you for this information, I definitely do not consent.
I think it’s outrageous arrogance to even be expected to comply with there agenda, we all must stand together and say no!!
So many lies and false statistics and statements from day one.
Not for me thank you I’m doing fine without your dodgy vaccination!
Mark
17 September 2020 at 11:32 pm
I don not consent
Alan mazurke
17 September 2020 at 11:36 pm
I will not consent to being a human Guinea pig.
Véronique Hagard
17 September 2020 at 11:47 pm
I do not consent
Les Wood
17 September 2020 at 11:54 pm
If this is passed into law it sets an unprecedented situation were the population could be used as guinea pigs testing unproven vaccines or drugs with no comeback on drugs companies looking back at the thalidomide scandal no company can launch any treatment that is not properly tested before use I understand the need for a vaccine for covid19 but not at the expense of the public at large , I do not consent to this legislation being put into law
Veronique HAGARD
17 September 2020 at 11:58 pm
I do not agree at all!!
Kirsty
17 September 2020 at 11:59 pm
I do not agree to any vaccine and I have a right to refuse
Jayne
18 September 2020 at 12:06 am
I absolutely do not consent to the UK medical law being changed. I believe that a vaccine is unnecessary, and will cause far more harm than good.
Debra Williams
18 September 2020 at 12:50 am
I do NOT agree with this!! I do not want to be tested on, I want the basic human right to say NO! Introducing this law will be close to CRIMINAL!! There are natural ways to optimise our immune function. Why doesn’t the government spend more time & funds on educating the nation (firstly the medical profession) on preventative health care? Reducing toxins & chemicals which undermine & compromise our immune system? Why is the promoting of natural healthcare “non-compliant”? Using untested vaccines??? Surely this is grossly uncompliant!!! Oh yes! That’s why the government is covertly trying to change the law! Absolutely SHOCKING! 😱
Paul Macdonald
18 September 2020 at 5:20 am
I do not consent . I do not want the legislation changed and No one will trust a vaccine developed by corporations that cannot be sued when you have an adverse reaction
Liah
18 September 2020 at 7:20 am
I do not consent to something that could be dangerous to the health myself and my children.
Jacob
18 September 2020 at 7:23 am
I do not consent to this fast tracked vaccine roll out , the whole idea is a complete disgrace !
My body, my choice !!!
progress
18 September 2020 at 8:57 am
I do not consent
Me
18 September 2020 at 8:58 am
I do not consent, I want the right to say no,
Maurice Marcus
18 September 2020 at 9:00 am
This law needs to be stopped in its tracks. I disagree wholly with this but recognise that a temporary law pertaining only to the covid19 vaccine to allow distribution by only medical professionals and with no indemnity. I also believe that it is an individuals decision to take or leave the vaccination.
Jill Allsopp
18 September 2020 at 9:01 am
Similarly to the Human Rights Act, the existing legislation and constraints are intended to protect the rights of those who can't stand up for their own rights, against the profiteering of business. These proposals do away with many of those rights and are NOT acceptable in the modern developed world
Nickyta Nond
18 September 2020 at 9:14 am
Thankyou for giving us the Opportunity and I consider this as a violation of human right, the tax payers don't pay the government to dictate to them.how they live their life! Please please if you want to use our money to Invest in your vaccine manufacture we can tolerate that but please do not impose to us your experiment, we are adult and we know what is good for our lives, I have never had any form of vaccine be it flue or chicken pox and I have never been sick, why do they think this one is important for? Please please let the experiment start with the officials
Carol Lyne
18 September 2020 at 9:19 am
I do not consent to the vaccination, because the whole thing is a fucking scam
Jacqui Twigg
18 September 2020 at 9:19 am
I do not consent!!!
Elizabeth Benamore
18 September 2020 at 9:25 am
I Do Not Consent to all this
Linda Mcgarrol Safari
18 September 2020 at 9:45 am
I do not consent
Sara Mead
18 September 2020 at 9:58 am
I DO NOT consent to mass vaccination! No way...not a chance....for many of the above mentioned reasons. It is an infringement on human rights to do so.
Gemma Leighton
18 September 2020 at 10:27 am
Not in my name. I do not consent !
Cliff wells
18 September 2020 at 10:51 am
I do not consent, Bojo Is a puppet who says what he's told to, maybe they should experiment on politicians before they give it to the general public, after all they are dispensable whereas real people, who do an honest days work are not.
MarcEvans anhinternational.org
18 September 2020 at 10:53 am
I DO NOT CONSENT TO THE LAW BEING CHANGED TO PASS AN UNCHECKED VACCINE.
Duncan spencer
18 September 2020 at 10:54 am
I do consent
Tina Teearu
18 September 2020 at 10:58 am
Totally wrong - this must be stopped.
Toyin Solanke
18 September 2020 at 11:00 am
I do not accept or consent to these proposed changes to the safe guards in Medical Law. I do not agree to mass vaccination.
Marian Long
18 September 2020 at 11:05 am
I do not consent. I will not be taking a vaccine that is rushed through without proper testing and without accountability.
Rebecca Caines
18 September 2020 at 11:08 am
I do not consent to my body having a vaccine of any kind. I have an immune system like everyone else does. How is it we have a flu vaccine and 99% of people that have still contract the flu. I'll take my chances thanks
Leighton Stanley
18 September 2020 at 11:08 am
I do not consent to this 1 bit at all
Mandy Stanley
18 September 2020 at 11:10 am
I do not agree or give my consent to this happening
peter elias
18 September 2020 at 11:18 am
Thank you for all your hard work in assembling these arguments and publicising the consultation. I have managed to complete it without swearing ! Please keep up the scrutiny, stay strong.
Michael
18 September 2020 at 11:20 am
I do not consent
Patrick O'Neill
18 September 2020 at 11:23 am
I oppose any form of mandatory vaccine by the British government. Certificate of vaccination identification 19 - artificial intelligence. You are puppets to the New World Order. I oppose the oppressors, nations like England, America & Israel. The phoenix will rise from the ashes. Good will prevail over the work of Satan himself, Bill Gates (who has no medical qualifications) & his cronies.
Michelle Irving
18 September 2020 at 11:37 am
This is so wrong on so many levels.
Robert
18 September 2020 at 11:38 am
There is no compelling data for a compulsory vaccination programme, since it is now clear that mortality rates for Covid-19 are extremely low and no more alarming than for any other coronavirus (flu). There is simply no justification for rushing through an untested vaccine and/or imposing any sort of universal compliance. Laws and conventions designed to protect the public should not be brushed aside by a hysterical government with a deplorable agenda.
Mark Taylor
18 September 2020 at 11:45 am
This is too risky and not thoroughly tested. In addition to what has already been said, experts already tell us that many human illness and disability conditions that have been researched, have shown aluminium present in the brain at a higher percentage than those who die without any conditions.
We have never carried out any research into HOW the aluminium gets there, but we know THAT it gets there! We know that vaccines also promote abortion and the use of murdered aborted baby cells in the production of vaccines. We know that this global surge of world governments is pressing for a vaccine for a virus that poses a very small ratio threat of illness and death ...MUCH LESS than common flu, Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and other diseases. We KNOW that the fear hysteria has been organised by and out of the United Nations and the Marxist-led World Health Organisation - whose Director General was involved in the joint venture with Bill Gates that has caused so many deaths in Africa, especially Ethiopia. Boris Johnson is setting a dangerous precedent in his words , when he said by implication that WE citizens are basically incapable of deciding for ourselves our own health best. He has thus set a precedent for enforcing vaccinations upon us....THIS contravenes every human's right and freedom and completely disregards OUR own UK and EU Laws of Equality and Diversity and Human Rights, and "Flies in the face of" intelligent logical rational reasoning and behaviour, as well as scientifically based evidence that WE DO NOT NEED A VACCINE!
Marcelle
18 September 2020 at 11:49 am
I do not consent.
Helena Williams
18 September 2020 at 11:57 am
I do not consent
Jan Ashton
18 September 2020 at 12:54 pm
I do not consent to this change in the legislation on vaccines.
Nicolette Bryan - Knoff www.knoffyoga.com
18 September 2020 at 1:06 pm
I do not consent, we are responsible for ourselves.
Debra Hawksworth
18 September 2020 at 1:16 pm
I do not consent not in the past I the now or in the future !
A huge Thanks to all those who join me in saying NO !
Chris
18 September 2020 at 1:32 pm
i do not consent
Nicola Neill
18 September 2020 at 1:42 pm
I do not consent!!
Kris
18 September 2020 at 1:52 pm
I DO NOT CONSENT.
Jo Mitchell
18 September 2020 at 2:18 pm
I do not consent to be given any vaccine
Louise
18 September 2020 at 2:27 pm
I do not consen to any changes in Laws, to any vaccines, to any more control and manipulation, I do Not consent to anything of this old crumbling system.
New Earth is Now
A NW
18 September 2020 at 2:33 pm
My life was ruined by a vaccination that was forced on me due to my working environment. Although tested, my health has been seriously affected. What happened to me was a known side effect of the vaccine but it was still licensed & subsequently administered widely. Even if side effects are listed as uncommon or rare, this still means some of the population suffer life changing damages to their health. So I do not consent to any of the above. A roll out of any medicine is for individuals to choose if they’re willing to take a risk.
Andy
18 September 2020 at 2:36 pm
NO to unlicensed vacations!
James Zikic
18 September 2020 at 2:38 pm
It is Unjust and Anti-Human to have a Mandatory Vaccination Programme. I do not consent to being Injected with Materials that should never be put in to a Human Beings Body. It goes against a Human Beings Dignity. It is my God given Right to refuse any Vaccination. So i refuse Mandatory Vaccinations.
Victoria Hughes
18 September 2020 at 2:43 pm
I do not consent
Rod Dunford
18 September 2020 at 3:25 pm
I do not consent
Rikki
18 September 2020 at 3:36 pm
I do not consent to this
Helen
18 September 2020 at 3:55 pm
I would sooner take the Government to court than allow myself be forcibly vaccinated its a concept I find utterly abhorrent and it's very clear there is a lot more than an accidental global pandemic going on here. Well done everyone commenting and responding to the consultation, keep spreading the word, together we are mighty!
Tom Uk
18 September 2020 at 4:26 pm
I do not consent
Liam
18 September 2020 at 4:28 pm
I DO NOT consent
Maria
18 September 2020 at 4:38 pm
I do not wish to be given any vaccine that has not been tested and found to be safe, nor do I want my children or grandchildren to be used as guinea
pigs for an untested vaccine
Leslie Batty facebook
18 September 2020 at 5:07 pm
I vehmently disagree with these illegal acts on pepoles sovereignty and we have laws in this country that protect us from this very thing,i reject any authority challenging this
Karolina KARBOWNIK
18 September 2020 at 5:26 pm
I don't want to be given any vaccine.
Amethyst
18 September 2020 at 5:37 pm
I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS CRIME!!!
Elizabeth Hodge
18 September 2020 at 6:04 pm
I do not consent to this
Ian B www.lifeforce9.com
18 September 2020 at 6:16 pm
Boris must be the most deeply misguided and misinformed prime minister in recent history. He knows nothing about science and is being led by those with vested commercial and professional interests - a virtual Medical Taliban. He is endorsing medical tyranny. I've never before heard a prime minister be so utterly wrong in his statements.
I will never submit to forced vaccination and consider such an act a violation of human rights that must be tried before an independent international tribunal.
Annette McClean
18 September 2020 at 6:18 pm
I do not want any covid vaccine for myself or family ones. These vaccines are unsafe & needs to not be against my human rights. Even wearing masks are not healthy for all ages for their breathing & will result soon in more having chest/lung problems.
Sangeeta Kapoor
18 September 2020 at 6:52 pm
I do not consent to this
Sarah
18 September 2020 at 6:53 pm
I do not consent at all for this unlicensed untested unnecessary vaccine we need to all stand united and say NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Ann Howard Facebook
18 September 2020 at 7:16 pm
I do not agree to this !
Edwina Lyward
18 September 2020 at 7:30 pm
This mandated vaccine should not be introduced:
There are no trial data as yet that confirm the risk/benefit profile of candidate vaccines, therefore it is premature to change existing provisions under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (HMRs)
The UK Govt has yet to adequately evaluate other options for therapeutic treatments and prevention approaches that could be delivered under the existing legislative framework. The terms ‘safety’ and ‘effectiveness’ need to be qualified
There should be:
Full transparency of raw data from phase 1 to 3 clinical trials to allow independent assessment
Any revisions to Regulation 174 should include a new condition in which evidence of non-disclosure of relevant data or information by manufacturers or triallists relating to quality, safety or effectiveness would represent a breach of the temporary authorisation of the unregistered vaccine.
The existing provisions under Regulation 174(3) are too limited and should be clarified further
The “reasonable person” should exclude persons “with an interest in placing products on the market”
This is owing to inherent conflicts of interest which would reduce the likelihood of an ‘objective bystander’ view that is in the public interest
Non-disclosure, omission or errors of relevant data or information relating to quality, safety or effectiveness, whether deliberate or the result of negligence would constitute a breach in the conditions of temporary authorisation
Administrators of vaccines are typically key providers of information required to ensure informed consent
Individuals who are not authorised health care professionals have no accountability, nor is there oversight in terms of their expertise in the complex and uncertain field of vaccine science
The Sideaway 1985 case [AC871] set the precedent for doctors who operated without consent of patients being guilty of the civil wrong of trespass to the person and the criminal offence of assault
Providing immunity from civil liability to non-health care professionals would create scenarios in which individuals were readily deprived of fundamental human rights through lack of informed consent (The Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 14)
Accordingly, proposed amendments to Regulations 229, 230, 231, 233 and 234 that seek to expand the workforce of vaccinators beyond authorised health care professionals are rejected.
Reversing the prohibition on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of unlicensed medicines and vaccines would be a backwards step
Mass vaccination with unlicensed vaccines during a pandemic is non-commercial activity and therefore should not include advertising
Advertising involves communication of claims, yet given the experimental nature of vaccines there is great uncertainty over claims
It would be wrong to provide immunity to civil liability to vaccine manufacturers allowing them to escape consumer protection laws that bind other advertisers
Advertising could include deceptive messages, omission of important information and the use of aggressive sales technics which would otherwise constitute breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
It would be ethically wrong to use the pandemic to shoehorn in much wider changes that would in effect ‘Americanise’ advertising by pharmaceutical interests.
It is acceptable to limit wholesale license exemption to NHS organisations, NHS contracted service providers, and the medical services of the armed forces.
Dea
18 September 2020 at 7:35 pm
I strongly believe that no human should be given a vaccine that has not been tested and proven to be safe , i do not want my children , grandchild or any of my family to be given something that could cause them any harm and therefore i do not consent or give the consent for any of my children to be given a vaccine
Donna
18 September 2020 at 7:39 pm
i do not consent...
Denise
18 September 2020 at 7:52 pm
So wrong. This confirms UK becoming a police state to try to enforce vaccines that further down the line could have unforeseen and possible dire consequences. Totally unacceptable.
David Baxter
18 September 2020 at 7:58 pm
This would never have happened in previous decades of humanity after the thalidomide catastrophe so why would we willingly let a blind government lead us further into the depths of experimental vaccines?
Be strong and be counted, they are lying to us.
Margaret Cummings
18 September 2020 at 8:01 pm
The Government seem to be treating Human Beings as a commodity this whole business has been a farce from the start Changing the rules as if to see how far they can manipulate the public as if we were puppets on a string to be played with (Authoritarianism?) .They should have followed the Swiss example and let the "virus" run it's course. Protect the vulnerable. There was no need for an experimental, unproven vaccine we would have gained true herd immunity.. Every vaccine insert states the vaccine MAY NOT PROTECT the recipient from disease. All vaccine have potentially serious side effects to the recipient We we are not told of those serious adverse effects -, one has to find the information for themselves. this happens usually when they or a member of their family develops a serious effect like Transverse myelitis, Epilepsy, GBS, Thrombocytopenic purpura, Cerebral palsy-to name a few. The Government are acting like the criminals in world war 11. They have no right to decide for the people it's our bodies our lives period. To implement a vaccine which is highly questionable is surely going against the Nuremberg Code 1947. Vaccine manufacturers should be fully culpable for any injury as should the Government for it's their decision to go ahead with this proposal. Laws should not be altered to suit their whims non medical staff should never be allowed to administer any vaccine.. The public should be given full and accurate disclosure of the vaccine trials adverse effects, only then can they decide for themselves.
MS MARGARET CAMPBELL
18 September 2020 at 8:03 pm
I do NOT consent to any mass vaccination programme promoted under ANY guise. Also, any vaccine accelerated through the normal testing schedule is positively dangerous.
Rupert Dawkins
18 September 2020 at 8:06 pm
I DO NOT CONSENT.
Jennifer Veness
18 September 2020 at 8:22 pm
I do not consent to the rollout of unlicensed #vaccines. I am very concerned about the possibility of vaccinations being offered that have not been through the normal testing channels. If this temporary authorisation is allowed, it will set the precedent for many more similar licenses being granted; very dangerous in my opinion. Many people remember the tragic outcome of Thalidomide and other medications. We have people dying of cancer and not allowed seemingly good medicine because the testing is not finished; why the rush with this vaccine?
I am also concerned with some of the ingredients of the vaccine; the public need to be made aware of these.
I don't agree with people administering vaccinations that are not part of the health network and have not had adequate training.
I would like to see more openness that would make the public much more aware of what is happening.
Dawn Race
18 September 2020 at 8:29 pm
Good health does not come from the end of a needle, I am more than capable of looking after my own health, and I will decide what I put into my body, thanks' but NO THANKS'
Paul Lavenu
18 September 2020 at 8:41 pm
I do not consent to any covid vacination
Bobbie Challenger
18 September 2020 at 8:54 pm
What about our human rights? Or do we lose those when we leave the EU too? Who in their right mind would think it ok to force an unlicensed vaccine on the masses? I will not have this nor will I allow my children to have such a vaccine.
Jekaterina Kozlovska
18 September 2020 at 9:19 pm
I do not consent!
Graham Allmark
18 September 2020 at 9:35 pm
I do not consent to this and I do not agree with mass vaccination
Tina
18 September 2020 at 9:45 pm
This madness needs to stop. I do not consent to thisand I am so grateful to the people waking up and fighting for our freedoms.
Tara Corbin
18 September 2020 at 9:49 pm
I will not support obligatory mass vaccination and allow something which we do not have sufficient knowledge of and which could potentially harm me to be put into my body. Absolutely not! This contravenes the human rights act and the individual freedom our forefathers fought and freed us from in the second world war.
Kathryn
18 September 2020 at 10:04 pm
At the beginning of the consultation, it said that the legislation isn't about mandatory vaccinations etc. I can't remember exactly what the points were but there were about 5 of them. I can't seem to go back to look on the site. Does anyone remember what they were and if they were all true or not? Would love to hear your feedback.
Hilary Bow
18 September 2020 at 10:07 pm
I will not be having the Covid Vaccine. I do not consent. What happened to
The Free Will of the People.
Kevin Bowles
18 September 2020 at 10:21 pm
No Covid 19 Vaccination thank you very much
I have spent my life living to the best of my ability
An alternative lifestyle.
Yve Jones
18 September 2020 at 10:43 pm
Reprehensible, I do not consent!
Mrs A Coates
18 September 2020 at 10:48 pm
I definitrely do not agree with mass vaccinations using vaccines which have not been proven over time. Rushed through vaccines are deemed not as reliable, and I for one will be refusing it.
David O'Brien anhinternational.org
18 September 2020 at 11:02 pm
I do not consent to this. I affirm that I am a Sovereign being and the crass and dangerous commercial interests of Big Pharma and Corporate Science will not trample over my rights to protecting my body with absolute medical freedom. I do not consent to your dangerous and fundamentally unscientific vaccine programmes.
Antonella Coradduzza
18 September 2020 at 11:06 pm
I do not agree with the proposed mass vaccination.
We have the right to say NO.
Lynda
18 September 2020 at 11:20 pm
I do not need a vaccination and do not consent.
Nadine alexia
18 September 2020 at 11:26 pm
Absolutely not for me! It takes many years of clinical trials to develop a safe vaccine. There is definitely a hidden agenda here and too many guinea pigs out of fear will jump straight in and be vaccinated. God help the fall out in years to come. We just need to live with this virus, like we live with the flu and the common cold.
Stephanie Michelle Cousins
18 September 2020 at 11:38 pm
I do not consent to this!
Alan Gill
19 September 2020 at 1:42 am
I would prefer to give Boris and Bill Gates a large dose of cyanide before I would be prepared to let some untrained arsehole stick this untested vaccine.We need to band together and fight this tooth and nail.
Kerrie LeGray
19 September 2020 at 10:58 am
I do not consent to this inhumane crime. We are not rats in a lab.
Kathryn Russell-Jones
19 September 2020 at 7:37 pm
I will not be having any untested vaccine forced upon me, my children or my grandchildren.
Denise Gill
19 September 2020 at 8:52 pm
I object very strongly to the use of untested vaccines.
Amanda Pearson
20 September 2020 at 12:09 pm
I will not be having any untested vaccine forced upon me, my children or my grandchildren
Sharon Bainbridge
20 September 2020 at 9:22 pm
My dear friend is an ex nurse, she encouraged me to get off meds for Asthma due to the damage chemical medications do to our body. I trust her, because she cares about people. Not profit!
Having cured my Asthma with organic fruit, veg and Japanese Knotweed. I find it Nazi like behaviour to force Vaccinations on people that have cured illness with change of diet. Our body our choice.
Another nurse said we need to protect the vulnerable by having the vaccination. Seriously?
If the vaccination is that great then it will protect those who smoke and eat badly.
Bill Gates can stick his vaccines where the sun does not shine. He invested in Monsanto, the Monsters that poison our bees, earth and health. And are responsible for Indian Farmers suicides.
Tony Cass
21 September 2020 at 6:03 am
I do not consent to this
Zara
22 September 2020 at 12:00 am
I absolutely do not agree with the governments proposal. I do not consent
Mark Not a sheep
22 September 2020 at 10:42 am
I do not concent. And I say no to unlicensed vaccines.
Melvin Parkes
22 September 2020 at 5:31 pm
I Do Not Consent To This Vaccine!
Ernest
07 October 2020 at 7:38 pm
No! I will not accept any vaccines!
Anna
25 October 2020 at 9:43 pm
No mandatory vaccinations
Steven
17 February 2021 at 6:31 pm
The European Court of Human Rights, part of the Council of Europe
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – the international body of which the European Court of Human Rights is a part (not to be confused with the EU, and of which Britain remains a member) – has passed a resolution that vaccines must not be mandatory and no one should suffer discrimination on account of not having been vaccinated. It reads:
7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake:
7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;
Mark Heffey Twitter
02 May 2021 at 8:55 am
I do not agree and I do not consent to this barbaric roll out of a planned pandemic.
I would not have chemotherapy or radiation if i did not have cancer, SO, why should I have a synthetic pathogen when I feel well.
This is a mass experiment on humanity not a treatment.
Stand tall and brave for the sake of the children and their futures.
Derek Donnelly
30 May 2021 at 11:23 am
This is an absolute disgrace. I have never had a vaccine since primary school, I am now 60 and have no intentions of getting one. I am not anti vacs I believe it should be the individuals choice.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences