Brand New Tube
Sonia Poulton
Sonia Poulton 15 Sep 2020
4,596
watermark logo

Up next

(psy-war bio-war) the drug research center exposed! (see description)
19 Sep 2020
(psy-war bio-war) the drug research center exposed! (see description)
Platos Zoodiac · 1 Views

Unlicensed vaccinations You can stop this! Find link in the description.

2,529 Views

⁣Unlicensed vaccinations You can stop this!

https://www.gov.uk/government/....consultations/distri


⁣Consultation ends 18th September 2020

Show more
100 Comments sort Sort By


beatab07
beatab07 8 hours ago

how do we know (except of having a lab at home to analyse it) that flu jabs are not contaminated with covid trials?

   0    0
apscotland
apscotland 15 hours ago

My response to the consultation, for what it's worth. I'm sure it will be ignored! ⁣1. Temporary
authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products

The assertion
that a Covid-19 vaccine is the best approach to the pandemic can’t possibly be
known until all the safety and efficacy testing of the vaccines has been
completed. There is a lot of peer-reviewed research showing that people who
take the flu vaccines regularly are MORE susceptible to coronavirus infections
than those who do not take the flu vaccine. Innate immunity is much stronger and
more effective when people are exposed to viruses without vaccines. Why is there
such a strong push to INCREASE uptake of flu vaccines during this pandemic,
knowing that people will be more at risk of serious illness from the new
coronavirus if they do take the flu vaccine?



The 2014 Cochrane review found “no evidence for the utilization of
vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health
measure.” Even more concerning, a study from January 18,
2018, in the Journal of the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS, found that influenza vaccination actually increased transmission of the virus, with vaccinated individuals
shedding more than six times as much aerosolized virus in their breath than
unvaccinated individuals.

IF a safe and effective vaccine IS developed, it
should be licensed. If it isn’t safe and effective, or there is sufficient
uncertainty to prevent it being licensed, it should not be deployed. Since it
will be impossible to understand even the medium term risks of a new vaccine
which is produced in less than ten years, never mind the long-term risks, the
risks must surely outweigh the benefits. So there is no reason whatsoever to
rush legislation through to allow supply of unlicensed products.

Now that we
know much more about SARS-Cov-2, we know which vulnerable populations should
continue to take greater precautions against exposure to the virus. We also
know that simple inexpensive steps can be taken by everyone to ensure their
vitamin D levels and zinc levels are optimum to help reduce the chance of respiratory
infections developing into severe disease. There are also known effective treatments
which should be used for anyone with early symptoms - HCQ plus zinc plus
azithromycin at the appropriate doses – NOT the toxic levels used in the ‘Recovery’
trial.

https://www.academia.edu/44055....492/Hydroxychloroqui

The Math+
protocol is also tried and tested, with clear treatment options appropriate for
all the various stages of the illness for hospitalised patients. https://covid19criticalcare.co....m/math-hospital-trea

There should
be far more focus on prevention and treatment of Covid19 than the incredible
expense of experimental vaccines rushed through the safety programme to be
unleashed on the public.





2. Civil liability and
immunity

Since you aver that any proposed vaccine
against Covid-19 will have been shown to be safe and effective, there is no
reason for manufacturers / distributors / practitioners to be given immunity
from prosecution in the event of damaging side effects. The public should not
be expected to accept a vaccine which is NOT safe and effective, and should
certainly not be expected to waive their right for compensation should they be
damaged in any way from the vaccine. The government MUST ensure that there is a
straightforward process for anyone damaged by the vaccine to be able to apply
for appropriate compensation. The £120,000 figure currently listed in the UK
gov vaccine damage payment website is nowhere near sufficient for serious
injuries, so this cap must be removed, to ensure fair levels of compensation
for whatever injuries may be sustained. If the government intends to promote
wide take-up of the vaccine(s) then it must be prepared to compensate any people
injured as a result of those vaccines. If the Government does not have
sufficient faith in the safety of the vaccines to back them up with a guarantee,
then why should the members of the population have faith in them?



Practitioners must ensure that anyone
vaccinated is given full information about the risks and benefits of the
vaccine. If they fail to do so, they should be liable to pay compensation if
any injury results which the recipient of the vaccine had not been made aware
of prior to vaccination. Flu vaccines account for nearly 25% of payouts for injuries by
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund (VICA) in the USA.



Regarding the ‘objective bystander’, this
should be a knowledgeable person well-versed in the science, the law, and vaccine-injury
claims, ie a vaccine-injury lawyer with long experience of supporting claimants
in vaccine injury courts. The objective bystander by definition can not be a
pharmaceutical representative! Why would you employ a fox to guard the
henhouse?



3. Proposed expansion
to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations



This is a reckless and unnecessary idea. If a
safe and effective vaccine is developed and licensed for use, it will take some
time for production to ramp up to produce large quantities of the product, so the
existing practitioners who are currently allowed to administer vaccines should
be sufficient.



This also allows a rolling implementation of
the vaccine, which gives additional protection to ensure that it really IS safe
once administered to huge numbers of people who are not the typical healthy
volunteers that the vaccine safety tests were carried out on. We all know that
additional side effects come to light post-marketing. The most important
consideration must be patient safety, so both practitioner and recipient must
be given full information about the vaccine ingredients, and all known side
effects, so that they are fully qualified to decide whether it is safe for them
to administer/accept it. There should be no coercion used to bully people into
accepting a vaccine which they are unsure about taking – practitioners should be
held accountable for the information they provide, for their protection against
litigation, and for the patients safety.



4. Vaccine promotion



No unlicensed medicine should be
promoted to either healthcare professionals OR the public. If this were to
occur, then the claims made about safety and efficacy would have to be just as –
or more – stringent than any promotion of a fully licensed vaccine, otherwise
the people behind the promotion would and should be liable for any inaccuracies
in the narrative once the vaccine was released into the public arena.



I repeatedly hear on BBC TV and Radio
programmes, and in the written media, that vaccines are 100% safe, and wild
claims are made over-stating their effectiveness. This is disingenuous at best,
and outright disinformation at worst. Such obviously and easily disproved
propaganda should have no place in any advertising campaign or government
statements. A quick glance at the lists of known side effects on the vaccine
manufacturers’ own leaflets proves that vaccines are not 100% safe.



For example, this is the list of the post-marketing
side effects on the Fluad flu vaccine for over-65s leaflet: thrombocytopenia, lymphadenopathy,
asthenia, influenza-like illness, extensive swelling of injected limb,
injection site cellulitis-like reaction, allergic reactions including
anaphylactic shock (in rare cases), anaphylaxis, angioedema, generalised skin reactions
including erythema multiforme, urticaria, pruritus or nonspecific rash,
vasculitis which may be associated with transient renal involvement, and
neurological disorders such as encephalomyelitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome,
convulsions, neuritis, neuralgia, paraesthesia, syncope, and presyncope.



These serious side effects are NOT
included on the leaflets available to patients. Why is that? Only the less
serious side effects appear on the patient leaflet. This is a dereliction of
duty, and opens the way for litigation – which is another reason why there
should be no cap on vaccine injury compensation claims in the UK, and why no
recipients of vaccines should be expected to sign a waiver to their right to
claim compensation in the event of injury caused as a result of taking the
vaccine.

   0    0
Craig
Craig 17 hours ago

I've filled out the form. We have to fight this any way we can!

   0    0
sjjftp20
sjjftp20 1 day ago

good to see you back on-line..have filled it out

   0    0
apscotland
apscotland 1 day ago

And Robert F Kennedy's response to the consultation: ⁣https://childrenshealthdefense.....org/news/response-t

   0    0
Show more

Up next

(psy-war bio-war) the drug research center exposed! (see description)
19 Sep 2020
(psy-war bio-war) the drug research center exposed! (see description)
Platos Zoodiac · 1 Views