The Covid19 Assembly are spearheading a legal case against the MHRA to challenge the temporary authorisation of Covid-19 vaccines for children aged 12 to 15.
On behalf of many extremely concerned parents the Covid19 Assembly is taking legal action to challenge the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)’s decision to approve the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine for use in 12-15 year olds.
We have assembled a world class group of experts doctors and scientists, including renowned Canadian pathologist Dr Roger Hodkinson MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, the US specialist in mRNA vaccines Dr Robert Malone MD, MS, South African-born medical doctor and research design analyst residing in the UK Dr Tess Lawrie MBBCh DFSRH PhD, British paediatrician Dr Ros Jones MD FRCPCH and many others. We now need, without delay, to fund preparations for Judicial Review of the MHRA’s decision.
We have a strong case
We have substantial evidence we are satisfied clearly establishes that there is no legal, moral or medical justification for children to receive this treatment. There can be no argument that this ‘vaccine’ is novel and comes with associated risks. It has not yet completed clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy beyond a few months and therefore there simply can be no long-term safety data.
Following the suspension of Hampshire GP Doctor Sam White by NHS England for publicly questioning Covid protocol, his solicitors Philip Hyland of PJH Law have sent the following letter to Sir Simon Stevens, Chief Executive Officer of NHS England.
The letter lays out accusations of unlawful actions by NHS executives, HM Government, SAGE, MHRA and other authorities.
The letter was also sent to Cressida Dick the Metropolitan Police chief, Charlie Massey the Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, Kathryn Stone OBE the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, and Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons.
The accusations made within the letter to Sir Simon Stevens are damning and consist of the following –
The MHRA has failed to ensure the vaccine advertising programme meets common law obligations as well as statutory obligations.
The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the Covid vaccine failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study.
Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine: 1. To do no harm. 2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated. The NHS and the Government have done neither and breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.
At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
Those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry.
Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.
The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation.
Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 5 in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna6 , one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein.
Matt Hancock did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts over which he had responsibility.
The public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route. Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.
The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public on the number of infections. That information does not differentiate between individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid, and those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
A letter from an MP states that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.
The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.
The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts. That information has not differentiated between those presenting in hospital with covid illness. those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently tested positive for coronavirus, or whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
The information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are. This has either been intentional or grossly negligent.
The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.
The information presented to the public does not differentiate between those dying from Covid, those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death, or those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable.
The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven. Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid. The risk is asymmetrical. The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity. The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction. It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability. None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy. Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed. Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed. Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated. That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
. The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1%.
The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination. It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.
None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from. Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 201227 make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law.
The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent.
The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.
SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection relies on the binding of S protein (Spike glycoprotein) to ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) 2 in the host cells. Vascular endothelium can be infected by SARS-CoV-2, which triggers mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production and glycolytic shift. Paradoxically, ACE2 is protective in the cardiovascular system, and SARS-CoV-1 S protein promotes lung injury by decreasing the level of ACE2 in the infected lungs. In the current study, we show that S protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells (ECs) by downregulating ACE2 and consequently inhibiting mitochondrial function.
We administered a pseudovirus expressing S protein (Pseu-Spike) to Syrian hamsters intratracheally. Lung damage was apparent in animals receiving Pseu-Spike, revealed by thickening of the alveolar septa and increased infiltration of mononuclear cells. AMPK (AMP-activated protein kinase) phosphorylates ACE2 Ser-680, MDM2 (murine double minute 2) ubiquitinates ACE2 Lys-788, and crosstalk between AMPK and MDM2 determines the ACE2 level. In the damaged lungs, levels of pAMPK (phospho-AMPK), pACE2 (phospho-ACE2), and ACE2 decreased but those of MDM2 increased. Furthermore, complementary increased and decreased phosphorylation of eNOS (endothelial NO synthase) Thr-494 and Ser-1176 indicated impaired eNOS activity. These changes of pACE2, ACE2, MDM2 expression, and AMPK activity in endothelium were recapitulated by in vitro experiments using pulmonary arterial ECs infected with Pseu-Spike which was rescued by treatment with N-acetyl-L-cysteine, a reactive oxygen species inhibitor
This database allows you to browse and view data on suspected side-effects from various medicinal products (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions (“ADRs”)). All data contained herein is sourced from VigiBase®, the World Health Organization’s (the “WHO”) global database for ADRs, maintained by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (the “UMC”).
To access the database follow the link below and type into the search box “comirnaty”.
Comirnaty contains the active ingredient(s): Covid-19 vaccine.
Covid-19 vaccines are exposing populations to serious, unnecessary and unjustified medical risks.
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them. In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of antibodies cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
Murder is an emotive word. In law, it requires premeditation. Death must be deemed to be unlawful. How could “murder” apply to failures of a pandemic response? Perhaps it can’t, and never will, but it is worth considering. When politicians and experts say that they are willing to allow tens of thousands of premature deaths for the sake of population immunity or in the hope of propping up the economy, is that not premeditated and reckless indifference to human life? If policy failures lead to recurrent and mistimed lockdowns, who is responsible for the resulting non-covid excess deaths? When politicians wilfully neglect scientific advice, international and historical experience, and their own alarming statistics and modelling because to act goes against their political strategy or ideology, is that lawful? Is inaction, action?1 How big an omission is not acting immediately after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020?
At the very least, covid-19 might be classified as “social murder,” as recently explained by two professors of criminology.2 The philosopher Friedrich Engels coined the phrase when describing the political and social power held by the ruling elite over the working classes in 19th century England. His argument was that the conditions created by privileged classes inevitably led to premature and “unnatural” death among the poorest classes.3 In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell echoed these themes in describing the life and living conditions of working class people in England’s industrial north.4 Today, “social murder” may describe the lack of political attention to social determinants and inequities that exacerbate the pandemic. Michael Marmot argues that as we emerge from covid-19 we must build back fairer.5
On April 20, all following Members of the European Parliament were served with notices of liability, advising that they may be held personally liable for harm and death caused by implementation of a Digital Green Certificate (Vaccine Passport), to be voted upon in the European Parliament on April 28, 2021.
As of 14 April 2021, for the UK, 50,022 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 145,994 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, 44 for the Moderna vaccine and 516 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified.
For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions.
On April 1st the experts issued a rebuttal letterto the EMA, following the regulator’s dismissal of their earlier warnings regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers from clotting and bleeding.
Within days of the EMA receiving the group’s original letter on March 1st, outlining risks of blood disorders from COVID-19 vaccines, over a dozen countries suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine following deaths from clotting and bleeding, as the doctors had warned.