Last Thursday (01/10/2020) I got the following response from my MP, to my letter and email delivered to him 21 September 2020.
Dear John Goss
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about a Covid-19 vaccination.
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a disastrous effect on the health and well-being of people across the UK and worldwide. It is clear that measures introduced by the Government can only slow down the spread of the virus, not eradicate it. Vaccines such as the flu vaccine have long been successful in protecting the vulnerable and reducing death rates due to viruses. Without a preventative treatment for Covid-19, it is likely we will be dealing with the effects of the virus for many years to come so I welcome the current research into developing a vaccine.
I understand that there is a concern that trials for potential Covid-19 vaccinations will be rushed to curb the virus but clinical trials are subject to regulations set in UK law. The UK Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations became law in 2004 to protect the rights, safety and well-being of research participants and to harmonise regulatory processes. Further to this, I was reassured that correct procedures will be followed by researchers as Covid-19 vaccination trials were recently paused to ensure the safety of participants and did not resume until confirmation was received from Medicines Health Regulatory Authority that it was safe to do so. I believe that no vaccination will be rolled out to the British public without correct licensing and thorough trials.
I appreciate your worries about the Government making the Covid-19 vaccination mandatory and that there will be penalties for non-compliance. However I feel this a highly unlikely outcome as there are currently no vaccinations that are mandatory in the UK and there is no basis in law to enforce mandatory vaccination. Health and Social Care Act 2008 introduced sections 45A-T to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which gave the relevant minister the power to make regulations to prevent danger to public health and prevent the spread of infection but the Act also made it explicitly clear that the power to make such regulations does not include mandatory treatment or vaccination.
I trust this information addresses your concerns.
Thank you for raising this important issue with me. You can find out more information about what I have been doing in Parliament and the constituency on my Facebook page.
Steve McCabe MP
Birmingham Selly Oak
I was not satisfied with this response since it did not clarify whether the Labour Party had condemned the draft document and its pandering to corporate pharmaceutical companies exonerating them from claims against them should the vaccines have short-term or long-term deleterious effects on those vaccinated.
Dear Steve McCabe,
Your ref: Covid-19 Vaccination (Case Ref: SM14035)
Thank you for your response to my email expressing concerns about the draft document I referred to within. I reproduce it here.
First can I ask if this was opposed by the Labour Party. Your response does not say.
I do not share your optimism that vaccines, which have a chequered history, will not be administered and made mandatory should this government choose to make them compulsory. How many formerly illegal government actions have been mandated since this nonsense began due to the Coronavirus Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents) for which Her Majesty’s Opposition voted in favour?
I recall at the parliamentary constituency meeting that your argument against Rebecca Long-Bailey and for Keir Starmer was the need for strong opposition against Boris Johnson. Since taking over the leadership Sir Keir has done nothing but dole out a wodge of money (thousands) to staffers who claimed anti-Semitism in the party (without consultation with members who put up the money) and sack Rebecca Long-Bailey for daring to mention the neck-on-the-throat technique taught to the US police by the Israeli military – a technique which led to the Black Lives Matter movement. Most glaringly he has had nothing to say in opposition to the draconian measures inflicted on the UK population by this Tory government in locking us all down, forcing us to wear masks and forcing us to social distance. Instead he has buried his head under the bedclothes in hope that the nightmare might go away. So much for party leadership! What is more these dictates militate against Common Law and it would not be surprising if all MPs were not served notice on these crimes against the public.
There are good questions Keir Starmer, and you, should be asking, namely:
Where is the scientific and medical evidence that the wearing of masks prevents the spread of viruses?
Where is the scientific and medical evidence that locking down communities and confining people to their homes has any benefit?
Where is the scientific and medical evidence that keeping two metres apart stops the spread of a virus?
Where is the scientific and medical evidence that a virus vanishes on the stroke of 10 pm?
I have read some of Chris Whitty’s papers and they are very general in their conclusions concerning the Ebola virus in West Africa. What is clear when a virus occurs is that no vaccine can be found and tested before the virus has played itself out. That was the case with Ebola and is the case with the milder virus SARS-COV2. Despite input from all over the world yet again, and despite having vaccines developed in case of an Ebola epidemic, the vaccine-producers could not come up with a safely-tested and efficacious vaccine before the curve flattened. Ebola is more deadly than SARS and yet we haven’t got a vaccine for the first SARS-COV virus (2003).
The UK government played its part in the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. “Supporting this [input from NGOs and WHO] was the structure of the UK government scientific advisory group in emergencies (SAGE), with specific technical groups for social sciences and vaccine development. This allowed for rapid informal peer review of unpublished data, and integration of sciences from the many disciplines with independent experts contributing to the synthesis which had to happen in real time.” [My underlining]
What kind of a peer review is an informal one? Despite that minor criticism the paper appears honest. So why not ask Chris Whitty, on whom the government is relying for all these ridiculous measures, the above questions. We get to hear where the “medical science” is coming from, him, but not what it is.
Lack of informed opinion has pushed 532 Belgian medical doctors, 1,840 health workers and more than 13,000 citizens to sign an open letter questioning the total gobbledygook on which our government is imposing iron-laws with iron-penalties for breaking them. This is the real science. By all means question it, if you doubt it. That is what proper research demands.
I leave the rest to your conscience. You, and Keir Starmer, are the elected representatives we, who elected you, are looking at to answer questions that concern us all. Please see if you can get him out of bed!