×

Message

EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.

2020/11/14

A legal opinion piece from State of the Nation reminds us of a home truth concerning fraud  - in Common Law it vitiates everything that depends upon it.

It's true that they had the US election in mind when this was written, but it applies equally in Common Law jurisdictions.

Something that anybody who wants to impose a new-technology vaccine (that has not completed its formal approvals process) on us for a virus that has not been proven to exist might be wise to ponder upon.


Dr Mike Yeadon has made his views known  to Matt Hancock (06/09/2020) (and to us via Twitter) - I reproduce the text below (my highlight):

"Dear Mr Hancock, 

I have a degree in Biochemistry & Toxicology & a research based PhD in pharmacology. I have spent 32 years working in pharmaceutical R&D, mostly in new medicines for disorders of lung & skin. I was a VP at Pfizer & CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco - acquired by Novartis). I’m knowledgeable about new medicine R&D.

I have read the consultation document. I’ve rarely been as shocked & upset.

All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been in development for more than a few months.

If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent

This is because there are precisely zero human volunteers for whom there could possibly be more than a few months past-dose safety information.

My concern does not arise because I have negative views about vaccines (I don’t), Instead, it’s the very principle that politicians seem ready to waive that new medical interventions at this, incomplete state of development- should not be made available to subjects on anything other than an explicitly experimental basis. That’s my concern.

And the reason for that concern is that it is not known what the safety profile will be, six months or a year or longer after dosing.

You have literally no data on this & neither does anyone else.

It isn’t that I’m saying that unacceptable adverse effects will emerge after longer intervals after dosing. No: it is that you have no idea what will happen yet, despite this, you’ll be creating the impression that you do

Several of the vaccine candidates utilise novel technology which have not previously been used to create vaccines. There is therefore no long term safety data which can be pointed to in support of the notion that it’s reasonable to expedite development & to waive absent safety information on this occasion.

I am suspicious of the motives of those proposing expedited use in the wider human population. We now understand who is at particularly elevated risk of morbidity & mortality from acquiring this virus.

Volunteers from these groups only should be provided detailed information about risk / benefit, including the sole point I make here. Only if informed consent is given should any EXPERIMENTAL vaccine be used.

I don’t trust you. You’ve not been straightforward & have behaved appallingly throughout this crisis.

You’re still doing it now, misleading about infection risk from young children. Why should I believe you in relation to experimental vaccines?

Dr Michael Yeadon"


The Independent reports that the NHS has asked GPs to prepare for a "coronavirus vaccine roll-out from as early as December" . . . 


And lastly, the MHRA has concluded a contract for the urgent supply of a system to handle ADR (adverse drug reaction) reports that they believe their legacy systems will be incapable of handling in the volumes expected:

"Section IV: Procedure

IV.1)Description
 
IV.1.1)Type of procedure
 
Award of a contract without prior publication of a call for competition in the Official Journal of the European Union in the cases listed below
  • The procurement falls outside the scope of application of the directive
Explanation:

For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool.

Strictly necessary — it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.

Reasons of extreme urgency — the MHRA recognises that its planned procurement process for the SafetyConnect programme, including the AI tool, would not have concluded by vaccine launch. Leading to a inability to effectively monitor adverse reactions to a Covid-19 vaccine.

Events unforeseeable — the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far."

The Contractee:

"V.2)Award of contract

V.2.1)Date of conclusion of the contract:
14/09/2020

V.2.2)Information about tenders
Number of tenders received: 1

The contract has been awarded to a group of economic operators: no

V.2.3)Name and address of the contractor
Official name: Genpact (UK) Ltd
Town: London
NUTS code: UK UNITED KINGDOM
Country: United Kingdom
The contractor is an SME: no

V.2.4)Information on value of the contract/lot (excluding VAT)
Total value of the contract/lot: 1 500 000.00 GBP"

 
 What could possibly go wrong with this roll-out?