Big Gee's BLOG

You shall know the TRUTH and the truth WILL set you free from this HOAX 'planned-demic' (supposed new virus) SCAM – Distrust The Government – Avoid Mass Media – Fight The Lies

A Running Journal of Written Correspondence [Volume 2]

A Running Journal of Written Correspondence [Volume 2]

HOLDING OFFICIALDOM 

TO ACCOUNT

To View VOLUME – 1 [Index Nos. 01 – 100]


Below is Volume 2 of a journal tracking correspondence to various organisations and governments requesting information and clarification regarding this ongoing ‘Covid-19’ episode. Each volume contains 100 individual enquiries to officialdom – including letters and Freedom Of Information Requests.

Replies (when received) are also published under the appropriate Index number issued. Please feel free to comment on the contents of this page, or to request enquiries on your behalf.


The Journal

Last Updated: 07th of March 2021

 


 INDEX No.

 Click on Index Number below to go to content

CORRESPONDENCE   SUBJECT/   TITLE

 

121

To:  Customer Contact Centre, Office for National Statistics, Room D625, Government Buildings, Cardiff Road, Newport, South Wales.

Subject: Covid 19 vaccination programme – Adverse Reaction Reports from MHRA

120

To:  Rt Hon Mark Drakeford MS, First Minister, Welsh Government, 5th Floor Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay.

Subject: Covid 19 RT-PCR Amplification Cycle Threshold [C t] – Economic lockdown Wales

119

To:  Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London.

Subject: Coronavirus Crisis – Independent Public Inquiry

118

To:  Freedom of Information Team, Department for Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London.

Subject: Coronavirus-related contracts – Unlawful Action

117

To:  Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London.
Subject: Covid 19 – Vaccine Passports

116

To:  Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall. London.

Subject:  Covid 19 National Vaccine Advertising Campaign – Stage 1 Complaint

115

To:  Freedom of Information Team, National Health Service, NHS England.

Subject: Covid 19 – National Vaccine advertising campaign

114 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Public Health England [P H E], Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road’ London.

Subject: Covid 19 Re-calibration of RT-PCR test to detect virus variant VOC202012/02 [South African variant]

113 To: Freedom of Information Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London

Subject: Covid 19 – Mass testing programme for SARS-CoV-2 virus

112 To: Freedom of Information Team, Department for Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London

Subject: Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study]

111 To: Freedom of Information Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]. 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Yellow Card Reporting

110 To: Freedom of Information Team; Office for National Statistics,  Government Buildings, Cardiff Road, Newport.

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Post-vaccination deaths

109 To: SAGE Group

Subject: Covid 19 – SARS-CoV-2: New variant identified at Bristol and Liverpool

108 Open letter to: Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London. SW1A 2AS

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Nuremberg Code

107 To: SAGE Group
Subject: Covid 19 – SARS-CoV-2: New variant from South Africa
106

To: Dr June Raine, Chief Executive Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccines – Adverse Drug Reaction [A D R]

105  

To: Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall. London

Subject: Validity of Covid 19 RT-PCR test and Lateral Flow test

104 

To: Freedom of Information Officer, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government.

Subject: C J / 104:     Covid 19 – Significant Scientific Evidence of spread within supermarkets

103 

To: Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London 

Subject:  C J/103:   Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine – Adverse Reaction Reports

102

To: Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall.

Subject: Covid 19 – External Investigation

101

To: Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]. 

Subject: Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine – R.174 Human Medicines Regulations [H M R] 2012

 


101 Enquiry

Dr June Raine
Chief Executive
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

Date: 14  12  2020

Dear Dr Raine

Subject: Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine – R.174 Human Medicines Regulations [H M R] 2012

I refer to the above subject and attach the following documentation.

  1. 174R H M R 2012 – original version [LINK]
  2. R.174 H M R 2012 – updated version [LINK]

I note adverse reactions as outlined in Section 2 [highlighted] of your updated version. In view of the adverse reactions to this vaccine can you please ensure that future updates to the document are dated, to ensure amendments to the document can be tracked. You confirm that no data is available in individuals with weakened immune systems. Does M H R A therefore consider there is a risk to those over 80 years of age as this age group is likely to have weakened immune system, particularly following the Government’s shielding policy when they were denied access to sunlight and vitamin D to boost their immune system. You also appear to have identified a risk to those using other medication or have recently received any other vaccine. Does this include vaccine for seasonal influenza. You further advise that side effects may temporarily affect the ability to drive or use machines. Can you please arrange to publish your findings on your website so that the general public can take informed decisions on the risks involved. 

Given that mRNA vaccines have not previously been administered to the human population, with animal testing still ongoing to establish the impact on fertility, please advise what process has been established by M H R A to monitor adverse reactions in the short, medium and long term.

A prompt reply would be appreciated as this vaccine is now being administered to the elderly with weakened immune systems. Thank you.     
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
Cabinet Office UK Government
First Minister Wales – Rt Hon Mark Drakeford MS


101 Response

Subject: FW: CSC 24709 – Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine – R.174 Human Medicines Regulations [H M R] 2012
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:10:38 +0000
From: News Centre <newscentre@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: News Centre <newscentre@mhra.gov.uk>

Hi Wynne,

Thank you for your email.

Please find our response to your enquiry below.

As with any vaccine or medicine, COVID-19 vaccines require continuous safety monitoring and this ensures that the benefits in protecting people against COVID-19 outweigh any side effects or potential risks. We have in place a robust and proactive safety monitoring strategy for COVID-19 vaccines which allows for near real-time safety monitoring at population level. The fact that these incidents were picked up quickly show that to be the case.

A primary responsibility of the MHRA is the protection of public safety through the effective monitoring of all medicines and healthcare products, including the vaccines that we have approved in the fight against COVID-19. This is a process known as safety monitoring (pharmacovigilance). This allows any new risks to be identified and measures can be taken to support safe and effective use. 

Building on our existing system for monitoring the use of medicines and medical devices, we have expanded our Yellow Card reporting system by creating a dedicated website for COVID-19 vaccine side effect reporting.

We also have regular interaction with the vaccine manufacturers in relation to emerging safety data.

Please note, we published the Public Assessment Report (PAR) for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine here where you can find out more information: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944544/COVID-19_mRNA_Vaccine_BNT162b2__UKPAR___PFIZER_BIONTECH__15Dec2020.pdf

I hope this helps.

Thanks

Tafi Maruta

News and Digital Specialist
Communications Division – News & Digital Content

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Direct line: 020 3080 6978


102 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 20  12  2020

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Covid 19 – External Investigation

An external investigation into the management of the Covid 19 crisis remains ongoing with extended terms of reference. To inform the investigation, I would be pleased to receive your response to the concerns set out below under the respective sub-headings

R T – P C R test
I attach external peer review of the RT-PCR test [LINK]. You will note that 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level have been identified with the review authors concluding that the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS viruses. This is reinforced by test kit manufacturers: clear warning notices are included with every kit confirming the test should not be used for diagnosis of viral infections. The Portuguese appeal court on 11 November 2020 came to a similar conclusion. A summary of their findings is also attached [LINK]. It would therefore appear that totally misleading data in terms of daily “case” numbers has been presented to government ministers with that flawed data used to inform economic lock down strategy / policy. The general public will also have received misleading statistics in daily BBC new bulletins. The Health Data Team at “Office for National Statistics” will now need to reevaluate the data provided during the first and second wave of this crisis taking into consideration the flawed test results. This evidence will need to be presented to the forthcoming “Independent Public Inquiry” into the management of the crisis as there are wide-ranging social, economic and healthcare implications. I take the view that the ministerial decision, announced 18 December, to mass test school children in England early in the new year should be revoked to avoid further misuse of public funds. The Public Inquiry chair should be appointed by the Prime Minister without further delay and provided with a clear brief [scrutinised by MP’s] to investigate the flawed test issue in detail. Additionally, an internal investigation by the “Cabinet Office” should be undertaken with “cost v benefit analysis” presented to Members of Parliament. This should be supplemented with an external investigation by the “National Audit Office”  to establish why the economy of the UK has been locked down [with serious impacts on healthcare and livelihoods] on the basis of completely flawed test results from a test that can not be used to diagnose viral infection. There are likely to be national, regional and even global implications as the RT-PCR test is used in various countries around the world. The involvement of the World Heath Organisation [with their close links to major pharmaceutical companies] should be scrutinised in detail in any future investigation to establish why this pseudo-science has been allowed to prevail.    

Pfizer / BioNTech Vaccine – BNT162b2
Having now examined the Public Assessment Report [PAR] published by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]” I attach a document setting out a summary of their findings, together with supplementary information [LINK]. It is a matter of concern to various eminent members of the medical and scientific profession [as listed in the document] that this experimental mRNA vaccine has received temporary authorisation for use in the human population by the M H R A following a request from UK Government under R.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Those that have now received the vaccine are an extension to the study programme. The PAR clearly confirms that a fertility and developmental study in rats is currently ongoing with the M H R A unable to confirm what the impact of genetic changes to human DNA brought about by this new-generation gene-editing vaccine will be. The impact on pregnant women is not known. It remains unclear whether the genetic modifications can be passed from parent to offspring and thus impact future generations in perpetuity. You will note that no genotoxicity studies have been undertaken and no such studies are planned. Those with weakened immune systems are now advised by M H R A not to take the vaccine. It remains unclear therefore why it is being administered to the elderly: those over 80 years of age that are likely to have weakened immune systems, particularly following the governments’ shielding policy that deprived the elderly of sunlight and hence vitamin D: essential for boosting the immune system to protect against viral infection. Prolonged mask wearing also depletes the immune system and results in hypoxia [lack of oxygen] and hypercapnia [build up of carbon dioxide in the blood]. Given the serious concerns expressed by the medical and scientific profession, does UK Government intend to provide the general public with details of the risks and benefits to ensure that informed decisions can be taken by the public prior to vaccination. Now that it has been established that the RT-PCR test should not be used as a diagnostic tool to detect viral infection with totally misleading information presented to ministers regarding daily “case” numbers, the rapid roll-out of the vaccine can not be justified on public health grounds, due to the major scientific flaws in the testing process.        

The Great Reset
I would be grateful if you could confirm whether UK Government is committed to implementing the “Great Reset” as explained in detail on “World Economic Forum” website at this link: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/  Is the “reset” to be achieved through implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 [now renamed Agenda 2030]: this being an agenda to transform the world through a plan of action to deliver sustainable development [economic, social and environmental] with all countries acting in collaborative partnerships to implement 17 sustainable development goals and 169 targets over a 15 year period ending 2030. The action plan requires governments and public institutions to work closely on implementation with regional and local authorities, sub-regional institutions, international institutions, academia, philanthropic organisations, volunteer groups and others. Full details are available at this link:

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
National Audit Office


102 Response

Awaiting reply


103 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 14  01  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject:  C J/103:   Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine – Adverse Reaction Reports

I refer to the above subject. Your attention is drawn to reports of adverse reactions [including deaths] following vaccination, as listed in Annex 01 below. Consequently, I would be grateful if you could urgently consider publishing, on UK Government website or “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [M H R A] website, a summary of  “Adverse Reaction Reports“. This will enable the general public to take informed decisions on whether they wish to accept the vaccine. A prompt reply would be appreciated as the vaccine is currently being rolled-out in the UK.

It is important to note that Pfizer are on record as confirming that the vaccine does not decrease the risk of infection, but lowers the effects of symptoms. This begs the question, what is the purpose of the vaccine. Covid 19 symptoms are particularly mild or non-existent in the vast majority of infected people. This calls into question the logic of the current vaccine roll-out.

I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience, following consultation with  M H R A. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex 01
Experimental COVID Vaccines: Pfizer Vaccine Fallout
CDC data shows that 3,150 people are now “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work” after vaccination. This is 2.7% of people who took it
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf
Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting the Pfizer covid vaccine as her father says he “wants answers”
https://trib.al/eEWi66p
Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-mexico-vaccines-idUSKBN2970H3
Hundreds of Israelis get infected with Covid-19 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine
https://www.rt.com/news/511332-israel-vaccination-coronavirus-pfizer/
Wife of ‘perfectly healthy’ Miami doctor, 56, who died of a blood disorder 16 days after getting Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is certain it was triggered by the jab, as drug giant investigates first death with a suspected link to shot
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9119431/Miami-doctor-58-dies-three-weeks-receiving-Pfizer-Covid-19-vaccine.html
75-year-old Israeli man dies 2 hours after getting Covid-19 vaccine
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/293865
Death of Swiss man after Pfizer vaccine
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-death-idUSKBN29413Y
88-year-old collapses and dies several hours after being vaccinated
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/293952
Thousands negatively affected after getting Covid-19 vaccine
https://m.theepochtimes.com/thousands-negatively-affected-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine_3625914.html
Hospital worker with no prior allergies in intensive care with severe reaction after Pfizer Covid vaccine
https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/16/hospital-worker-in-intensive-care-after-suffering-severe-allergic-reaction-to-covid-vaccine-13763695/
4 volunteers develop FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid-19 jab, prompting FDA to recommend ‘surveillance for cases’
https://www.rt.com/usa/509081-pfizer-vaccine-fda-bells-palsy-covid/
Investigation launched as 2 people die in Norway nursing home days after receiving Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine
https://www.rt.com/news/511623-norway-covid19-vaccine-deaths/
Hundreds Sent to Emergency Room After Getting COVID-19 Vaccines
https://m.theepochtimes.com/hundreds-sent-to-emergency-room-after-getting-covid-19-vaccines_3644148.html
US officials report more severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN29B2GS
NHS told not to give COVID vaccine to those with history of allergic reactions
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/pfizer-covid-vaccine-nhs-extreme-allergy-sufferers-regulators-reaction
COVID-19: Single vaccine dose leads to ‘greater risk’ from new coronavirus variants, South African experts warn
news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-single-vaccine-dose-leads-to-greater-risk-from-new-coronavirus-variants-south-african-experts-warn-12180837
CDC reveals at least 21 Americans have suffered life threatening allergic reactions to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9119029/amp/At-21-Americans-life-threatening-anaphylaxis-receiving-Pfizers-vaccine-CDC-reveals.html
Woman experiences side effects of COVID-19 vaccine
www.everythinglubbock.com/news/local-news/woman-experiences-side-effects-of-covid-19-vaccine/amp/
COVID vaccine side effects more common after 2nd dose
www.boston.cbslocal.com/2021/01/05/covid-vaccine-side-effects-fever-reaction/amp/
Bulgaria reports 4 cases of side effects from Pfizer COVID vaccine
www.ndtv.com/world-news/bulgaria-reports-4-cases-of-side-effects-from-pfizer-covid-vaccine-2347667%3famp=1&akamai-rum=off
Two NHS workers suffer allergic reaction to Pfizer vaccine
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-vaccine-pfizer-nhs-oxford-covid-uk-cases/amp/


103 Response

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

Please see our response to your enquiry below.

We are aware of recent articles published in the media in relation to deaths post vaccination. All reports of side effects from the UK vaccination campaign undergo robust scientific evaluation by the MHRA alongside data available from international sources. This is further considered by the Commission on Human Medicine and its Expert Advisory Groups.

Those at the highest risk of COVID 19 complications, whether due to their elderly age and/or underlying chronic illnesses, are currently prioritised for vaccination. It is not unexpected that some of these people may naturally fall ill due to their age or underlying conditions shortly after being vaccinated, without the vaccine playing any role in that. We have robust surveillance systems in place to rapidly review all reports of suspected side effects to determine whether these are possible new risks, or coincidental medical events.

Vaccine safety is of paramount importance and we continually monitor the safety of vaccines to ensure that the benefits outweigh any potential risks. The MHRA encourages anyone to report any suspicion or concern they have beyond the known, mild side effects on the Coronavirus Yellow Card site. Reporters do not need to be sure of a link between a vaccine and a suspected side effect but are still encouraged to report.

I hope you find this helpful.

Kind regards,
Amelia


104 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Officer
Information Rights Unit
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Date: 15  01  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

Subject: C J / 104:     Covid 19 – Significant Scientific Evidence of spread within supermarkets

I refer to the above subject. Your attention is drawn to an abstract from BBC News dated 15 January, reproduced in Annex 01 below. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000 at your earliest convenience .

  • A copy of the significant scientific evidence of the spread of Covid 19 within supermarkets in Wales” referred to by the First Minister as justification for the change in secondary legislation to be introduced.
  • A copy of the Scientific evidence available to the First Minister confirming the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 new variant in Wales

If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex 01
Abstract from BBC News 15 January 2021
New laws for shoppers and staff are to be introduced after “significant evidence” coronavirus is being spread in supermarkets, the first minister has said. Mark Drakeford said shops would have to install signs reminding shoppers to socially distance. It comes after customers and staff raised concerns over safety, with some workers saying they had faced abuse. Mr Drakeford said the stricter measures were needed due to the new variant. Speaking at the Welsh Government’s Covid briefing on Friday, Mr Drakeford said the Test, Trace, Protect scheme had shown there was “no doubt at all” transmission was taking place in supermarkets. But he also said: “I don’t want anybody to get the idea that supermarkets are dangerous places – supermarkets are safe places and we’re incredibly grateful to all those brave members of staff who have been in there, providing face-to-face services to members of the public since the very beginning of the pandemic. “We want to make sure that they are even safer.” Wales remains under a level four “stay at home” lockdown, meaning people are only allowed to leave home for essential reasons, including shopping for food. But there have been growing concerns from shoppers and staff about safety in supermarkets and Mr Drakeford previously said one-way systems and number limits in stores appeared to have broken down.
End of abstract


104 Response

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] a response letter towards your Freedom of Information request of 15 January.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Beese

Government Business Team


105 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 16  01  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Validity of Covid 19 RT-PCR test and Lateral Flow test

In reply to my request for information regarding the Covid 19 Lateral Flow Test the Freedom of Information Team at the Department of Health and Social Care [D H S C] kindly provided me with a copy of the preliminary report from the Joint P H E Porton Down & University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell, as attached hereto [LINK]. Having carefully examined the report I offer the following observations.

The preliminary report, dated 8 November 2020, appears to be based on the false premise that the RT-PCR test is the “gold standard”. The SARS-CoV-2 virus [and new variant] has not been isolated in a laboratory and identified: an obvious requirement under the gold standard, as set out in Koch’s Postulates. The viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model. The preliminary report has now been superseded by scientific evidence presented in an external peer review published 1 December 2020. A copy is also attached hereto [LINK]. You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level have been found with the review concluding that the RT-PCR test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The Portuguese appeal court arrived at a similar conclusion on 11 November 2020. Clear warning signage is included with every test kit confirming it should not be used for clinical diagnosis.

As economic lockdown policy and process in England and in the devolved administrations [Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland] is based on RT-PCR and Lateral Flow test results, I request that your circulate this letter and attachments to Cabinet Members as a matter of urgency to inform government policy. If Ministers, or their scientific / medical advisors, wish to challenge the content or conclusion of the external peer review, undertaken by eminent members of the scientific / medical profession, they are welcome to do so with supporting scientific / medical evidence.

I would expect the content of the peer review to be also of interest to the stakeholders listed below, as positive test results are currently incorrectly reported as new Covid 19 infections. The scientific evidence suggests that totally misleading information [and statistics] has previously been provided to the general public on a daily basis. I respectfully request that factually correct information be henceforth provided to the general public by UK Government and British Broadcasting Corporation.

If you require additional information or further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
National Audit Office
UK Statistics Authority
British Broadcasting Corporation


105 Response

Awaiting reply


106 Enquiry

Dr June Raine
Chief Executive Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

Date: 24  01  2021

Dear Dr June Raine,

Subject: C J 106:    Covid 19 Vaccines – Adverse Drug Reaction [A D R]

I understand, in October 2020, M H R A requested “for reasons of extreme urgency” an Artificial Intelligence [A I] software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid 19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reactions [A D Rs]. As justification for the urgent request, the M H R A confirmed that it was not possible to retro-fit its legacy systems to handle the volume of A D Rs that will be generated by a Covid 19 vaccine programme and that failure to develop and implement a new software tool presented a direct threat to patient life and public health.

I would be grateful if you could now provide an update and confirm whether the new A I software tool has been developed and is currently in use as part of your Pharmacovigilance Plan to monitor A D Rs from those who have now received the experimental unlicensed Covid 19 vaccines. I understand approximately 5 million people have received the first dose of the vaccine to date. 

I look forward to receiving an update at your earliest convenience. Thank you.    

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


106 Response

Dear Mr Jones

Please see attached [LINK]the response to your email from Dr June Raine, Interim Chief Executive of MHRA.

Kindest regards,

Dahna-Esther Fearon

Executive Assistant to Dr June Raine CBE, Interim Chief Executive

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4PU

Telephone: 02030806546

Email: Dahna.Fearon@mhra.gov.uk

Website: www.mhra.gov.uk.


107 Enquiry

To: SAGE Group

Date: 25  01  2021

Dear Group Members

Subject: C J 107:     Covid 19 – SARS-CoV-2: New variant from South Africa

I note, from an announcement on 24 January 2021 by the Rt Hon Matt Hancock Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, that 77 cases of a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 virus has been detected in the UK, originating from South Africa. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide the following information under the F O I Act 2000.

  • A copy of the guidance provided to Public Health Laboratories on how to recalibrate the RT-PCR test to detect the new variant of SARS-CoV-2 virus from South Africa, and
  • The reference number allocated to this new “Variant of Concern” from South Africa.

Explanatory Note
The previous “Variant of Concern” was designated VOC202012/01 on 18 December 2020.

I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


107 Response

Response received as a PDF attachment from the Government Office for Science: 17/02/2021.

[LINK to document


108 Enquiry

Open letter to:

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 27  01  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Nuremberg Code

Well respected eminent members of the medical and scientific profession are now on record demanding an end to the roll-out of experimental unlicensed Covid 19 vaccines as the risks to the human population is considered to be too high. These doctors and scientists take the view that people should not be pressured to comply with taking an experimental unlicensed vaccine, with coercion implemented by government legislation or through policy directives by large private and public corporations, including airlines, employers, schools and other institutions. They argue that this type of assault on medical privacy is invasive, aggressive and unethical; and in contravention of the established “Nuremberg Code“, as set out below. The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research. It serves as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research.

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society; unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Public Assessment Reports [PAR] published by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A] tasked with ensuring the safety of these vaccines confirms ongoing experimentation on animal and human population. Areas of particular concern are set out below in bullet point format.

  • First mRNA vaccine to be authorised for temporary supply and use in the human population. Long-term impact of the genetic changes on current population and future generations in perpetuity is not known.
  • M H R A continues to receive data from vaccine manufacturers as it becomes available.  With vaccine roll-out now ongoing, this amounts to ongoing experimentation on the human population in contravention of the Nuremberg Code.
  • Long-term follow-up efficacy and safety data is to be assessed at a future date.
  • Secondary and safety pharmacology studies have not been undertaken.
  • No excretion studies.
  • No pharmacokinetic drug interaction studies undertaken.
  • No single dose toxicity studies undertaken.
  • No toxicokinetic studies undertaken.
  • No genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies undertaken.
  • Combined fertility and developmental study [including teratogenicity and postnatal investigation] in rats is ongoing. Roll-out of vaccine to the human population is therefore a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code as animal and human experimentation is progressing in tandem.
  • No prenatal and postnatal development studies have been undertaken.
  • No local tolerance study, or other toxicity study has been undertaken.
  • No reproductive toxicity data is available.
  • It is not known whether the vaccine is safe for pregnant women. Use of vaccine in pregnancy is to be investigated as part of pharmacovigilance plan.
  • No environmental risk assessment is available.
  • Clinical studies remain ongoing post vaccine roll-out to the human population. Safety date is to be assessed at a future date. Again, a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code.
  • Subjects with a history of “Severe Adverse Reaction [S A R]” associated with a vaccine and / or severe allergic reaction [e.g. anaphylaxis] were excluded from the study.
  • Participants in study reported S A R.
  • Use of immunosuppressed individuals will be investigated in future as part of pharmacovigilance plan. Again, a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code.
  • No data available on use with concomitant vaccines, including influenza vaccines.
  • Long-term real-world data on vaccine effectiveness is not available.          

I understand, in October 2020, M H R A requested “for reasons of extreme urgency” an Artificial Intelligence [A I] software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid 19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reactions [A D Rs]. As justification for the urgent request, the M H R A confirmed that it was not possible to retro-fit its legacy systems to handle the volume of A D Rs that will be generated by a Covid 19 vaccine programme and that failure to develop and implement a new software tool presented a direct threat to patient life and public health. This raises serious concerns. I would be grateful if you could now confirm whether the new A I software tool has been authorised by UK Government and is currently in use to monitor A D Rs from those who have now received the experimental unlicensed Covid 19 vaccines. As I understand approximately 6 million people have received the first dose of the vaccine to date I would be grateful if you could circulate this letter to Cabinet Members and arrange to present the information in a press release to all news outlets in the UK. This should ensure that those now being offered the experimental unlicensed vaccine are aware of the risks and able to take informed decisions. Thank you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


108 Response

Awaiting reply


109 Enquiry

To: SAGE Group

Date: 02  02  2021

Dear Group Members

Subject: Covid 19 – SARS-CoV-2: New variant identified at Bristol and Liverpool

I note, from an announcement on BBC News today, that, in addition to the two previous variants [VOC202012/01 and from South Africa], two further variants of SARS-CoV-2 virus have been identified with 11 cases in Bristol and 32 cases in Liverpool. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide the following information under the F O I Act 2000.

  • A copy of the guidance provided to Public Health Laboratories on how to recalibrate the RT-PCR test to detect these two new variant of SARS-CoV-2 virus detected at Bristol and Liverpool.

I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


109 Response

Awaiting reply


110 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Office for National Statistics
Government Buildings
Cardiff Road
Newport
NP10 8XG

Date: 06  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 110: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Post-vaccination deaths

I refer to the above subject. Alarming figures relating to post-vaccination deaths and other injuries are now being recorded in America by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention [C D C] Latest data confirms 329 deaths and 9,516 other injuries following vaccination. More detailed information and analysis is available at the following link:

In view of these disturbing reports I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regard to data capture and analysis of Covid 19 vaccination programme.

  • The criteria used by the Office for National Statistics to record and analyse post-vaccination deaths in the U K

If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


110 Response

Our Reference: FOI/2021/1678

Dear Wynne

Thank you for your email requesting data pertaining to how ONS record and analyse post-vaccination deaths in the UK.

I am writing to confirm that the Office for National Statistics has now completed its search for the information which you requested and the response can be found here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/howonsrecordandanalysepostvaccinationdeathsintheuk

You have the right to have this response to your Freedom of Information request reviewed internally by an internal review process and, if you remain unhappy with the decision, by the Information Commissioner. If you would like to have the decision reviewed please email the Freedom of Information Team at ‘foi.team@ons.gov.uk’ or write to The FoI Team, Room 1100, Office for National Statistics, Segensworth Road, Titchfield PO15 5RR, and mark your correspondence “Internal Review”.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the Freedom of Information Team (‘foi.team@ons.gov.uk’).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

The Freedom of Information Team

Office for National Statistics

For information on Coronavirus, please visit ONS.gov.uk/coronavirus


111 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

Date: 07  02  2021

Dear Team members

Subject: Yellow Card Reporting

I refer to your Yellow Card process for reporting Adverse Drug Reactions [A D R] as explained in the following link.


I note, from the information provided, that your yellow card reports are evaluated each week to find possible unidentified hazards and other new information on the side effects of medicines. I also note that you evaluate information on medicines safety from other data sources from the UK and from around the world, and from information collected by other medicines regulators around the world.

From your weekly analysis of yellow card reports, and information received from other sources, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  • List of the Adverse Drug Reactions [A D R] reported to date following the national roll-out of approved Covid 19 vaccines.

If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


111 Response

Awaiting reply


112 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Department for Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0EV

Date: 15  02  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Team

Subject: C J 112:   Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study]

I refer to the above study, part funded by National Institute for Health Research [N I H R], as explained in the attached document [LINK]. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000.

  • a copy of the authorisation provided by UK Government for the study.

I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


112 Response

Awaiting reply


113 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 16  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 113: Covid 19 – Mass testing programme for SARS-CoV-2 virus

I note, from announcements by Cabinet Members, that the U K Government intends to rely on the results of mass testing of the population to inform economic lockdown strategy and policy. This conflicts with the latest scientific evidence as set out in an external peer review published 27 November 2020. The review was undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists and identified 10 major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level in the testing process, concluding that the test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. A copy of the review is attached hereto [LINK]. In view of the group’s findings, I regret, I must now request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  1. A copy of the scientific evidence available to U K Government confirming that the RT-PCR test can detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, and
  2. A copy of the scientific evidence available to U K Government confirming that the RT-PCR test can be used to diagnose any viral infection.

If you require additional information, or further clarification, you are welcome to contact me at any time. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


113 Response

Awaiting reply


114 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Public Health England [P H E]
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8OG

Date: 17  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 114: Covid 19 Re-calibration of RT-PCR test to detect virus variant VOC202012/02 [South African variant]

I attach letter dated 17 February received from “Government Office for Science” [SAGE Group], in reply to my request for information. You will note that the SAGE Group do not hold information regarding the recalibration of the RT-PCR test to detect virus variants. Accordingly, my request is redirected to Public Health England. I would be pleased to receive the following information.

  • a copy of the guidance provided to public health laboratories under the control of P H E on how to recalibrate the RT-PCR test to detect the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 virus, now referenced VOC202012/02.

I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


114 Response

Awaiting reply


115 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
National Health Service
NHS England
P O Box 16738
Redditch
B97 9PT

Date: 19  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 115:   Covid 19 – National Vaccine advertising campaign

I refer to the above subject and note, from media reports, that Sir Elton John and Sir Michael Caine have been recruited by NHS England to promote Covid 19 vaccines. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  1. The total budget for the Covid 19 vaccine advertising campaign.
  2. The total number of celebrities recruited by NHS England to advertise Covid 19 vaccines.
  3. The total sum to be paid in fees and expenses, from public funds, to the celebrities in [2] above.

I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


115 Response

Awaiting reply


116 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 19  02  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject:  C J 116: Covid 19 National Vaccine Advertising Campaign – Stage 1 Complaint

I have concerns regarding the use of celebrities by UK Government to promote Covid 19 vaccines in a national advertising campaign. I would be grateful if you could arrange to examine the issues under your formal complaints process. My concerns are listed below for your consideration.

  1. Celebrities recruited do not have the necessary scientific or medical qualifications to comment on vaccine safety.
  2. Information provided by celebrities conflicts with information provided by your regulator “The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA] in Public Assessment Reports [PAR] published on their website.
  3. No reference is made by celebrities to the fact that the experimental mRNA vaccines have not been “approved” for use in the human population: they have been granted “authorisation” for emergency use.
  4. No reference is made by celebrities to the Adverse Drug Reactions [including death] that can occur post-vaccination, as now recoded. The regulator MHRA is considered to be in a better position to front any national advertising campaign given that they have granted authorisation for emergency use and are in a position to advise the general public on the facts.
  5. It is imperative that the general public are able to take informed decisions based on facts provided by the regulator MHRA and not endorsement by celebrities who have received public funding to promote a product.
  6. The use of public funds to recruit celebrities in this manner is considered to be inappropriate given the health implications for the public, and the need to provide the public with the scientific and medical facts.

A copy of your formal concerns / complaints process is attached. I look forward to the outcome of your Stage 1 review at your convenience: hopefully within the timeframe outlined in the document. Thank you.
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


116 Response

Awaiting reply


117 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 23  02  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: C J 117:    Covid 19 – Vaccine Passports

Following the announcement today, by BBC News, that the Prime Minister has initiated a review into the possibility of introducing a Covid 19 “vaccine passport“, I have received numerous requests for clarification from members of the public. I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm whether Members of Parliament will be given an opportunity to input to the review to ensure that the views of the general public are conveyed to the U K Government through the normal democratic process. I look forward to receiving clarification. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


117 Response

Awaiting reply


118 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Department for Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0EV

Date: 25  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 118: Coronavirus-related contracts – Unlawful Action

I refer to the High Court ruling 19 February 2021 that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP, acted unlawfully in failing to publish details of billions of pounds’ worth of coronavirus-related contracts. I understand there is a legal obligation to publish “contract award notices” within 30 days of contract award. I would be pleased to receive the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  • A list of coronavirus-related contracts administered directly, or indirectly, by the Department for Health and Social Care, where the contract award is equal to, or exceeds, £10,000.

If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


118 Response

Awaiting reply


119 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 01  03  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: C J 119: Coronavirus Crisis – Independent Public Inquiry

Your attention is drawn to an article published in “Daily Mail” 27 February 2021, as attached. Evidence is presented in the article to support their assertion that an independent public inquiry into the management of the Covid 19 crisis should be initiated without further delay. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Office could consider including the concerns listed below for examination in the public arena, and included in the inquiry terms of reference.

  1. The validity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus and variants.
  2. The Government strategy / policy of mass testing using “lateral flow test” with “RT-PCR test” back-up. This conflicts with the latest scientific evidence now available. It remains unclear why economic lockdown policy is based on the flawed testing process. The Portuguese appeal court findings 11 November 2020 is a case in point. Reference should also be made to the external peer review, published 27 November 2020, by a highly respected group of international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. The review found 10 major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level and concluded that the RT-PCR test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. 
  3. The accuracy of Covid 19 mortality data / statistics, given the major scientific flaws in the RT-PCR test, and the possible use of pseudo-science to drive economic lockdown policy and process.
  4. The use of celebrities [including the Royal Family] to endorse the experimental unlicensed mRNA vaccines and the failure to explain the risks associated with “Antibody Dependent Enhancement” [A D E] – also referred to as pathogenic priming and cytokine storm – to the general public to enable informed decisions to be taken. The new gene-editing technology, not previously used in the human population, is not considered by leading immunologists and microbiologists to fall within the definition of a vaccine.
  5. The micro-management of the National Health Service by unelected technocrats at World Health Organisation, part-funded by a private foundation with substantial investments in the pharmaceutical industry. The impact of the advice on “all-cause mortality” in the UK should be examined by the inquiry.
  6. The mandatory use of face masks in defined areas [including schools] without risk assessment into adverse health impacts from “hypoxia” and “hypercapnia“, contrary to advice provided by eminent members of the scientific and medical profession.
  7. An examination, in the public arena, to establish why the views of eminent members of the scientific and medical profession have been censored during the Covid 19 crisis.
  8. Whether correct procurement protocols have been followed in administering coronavirus-related contracts to ensure value for money in accordance with the “benefit v cost” criteria set out in H M Treasury Green Book. The High Court ruling 19 February 2021 that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acted unlawfully is a case in point.
  9. The validity of computer modelling outputs to inform economic lockdown policy and process. This will require an examination of the model assumptions used and sensitivity analysis.
  10. An examination, in the public arena, into how the Covid 19 crisis links in with the “great global reset” now underway as explained on World Economic Forum website [https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/] to be implemented at national and local level under United Nations Agenda 2030 [https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda]. The cumulative U K debt of over £2 trillion may now be unsustainable and require harsh economic and social conditions to be imposed by the World Bank and IMF.
  11. The implications for democracy following the raft of new statutes and associated regulations introduced under emergency powers without effective parliamentary scrutiny and overview. 

I would be grateful if the Cabinet Office could consider including the concerns listed above in the terms of reference of the forthcoming “independent public inquiry” previously announced by the Prime Minister, and provide an indication of the timeframe for appointing inquiry chair. Supporting evidence and video interviews with leading immunologists, micro-biologists, scientists and doctors is available on B G B. Ministers and Members of Parliament and Senedd Members are invited to examine the information presented to inform the decision making process.

While I await your formal reply I take this opportunity to respectfully draw your attention to the well established principle of due process – audi alteram partem – the requirement to listen to the other side. Eminent members of the scientific and medical profession have, to date, been denied that fundamental right. Natural justice is the concept of common law which implies fairness, reasonableness, equality and equity. A person should receive a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect them. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be met in every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias.

I am encouraged that so many Members of Parliament, especially the “1922 back bench committee“, and “Covid Recovery Group“, have drawn attention to the way this government crisis has been managed. Arrangements are being made to circulate a copy of this letter, together with the formal response in due course from Cabinet Office, to the stakeholders listed below.         

I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you.  
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   All Members of U K Parliament
cc   All Senedd Members – Welsh Parliament


119 Response

Awaiting reply


120 Enquiry

Rt. Hon Mark Drakeford MS
First Minister
Welsh Government
5th Floor Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 03  03  2021

Dear First Minister

Subject: Covid 19 RT-PCR Amplification Cycle Threshold [C t] – Economic lockdown Wales

I refer to the above subject and attach copy of enquiry and response published on Public Health Wales F O I disclosure log [LINK]. You will note that, throughout the Covid 19 crisis, a C t value of 45 has been used in Wales. RT-PCR amplification cycles increase exponentially. A cycle threshold of 45 amplifies a fragment of live or dead RNA 35,184 billion times [35,184,372,088,832]. The test can not be used to diagnose viral infection as clearly explained in the external peer review, published 27 November 2020, by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. Review findings are attached hereto [LINK]. Ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found in the testing process.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to urgently investigate why this important information was not drawn to your attention as First Minister by your scientific advisors to inform political decisions in Wales regarding economic lockdown strategy and policy.

I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

 

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   Audit Wales


120 Response

Awaiting reply


121 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Office for National Statistics
Room D625
Government Buildings
Cardiff Road
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8XG

Date: 05  03  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: C J 121:  Covid 19 vaccination programme – Adverse Reaction Reports from MHRA

I refer to the above subject and and attach updated “Adverse Reaction Reports” [LINK-1] [LINK-2] published on M H R A website with a summary presented below. This follows the national roll-out of the experimental unlicensed Covid 19 vaccines. These have not been approved by the regulator but authorised for emergency use.    

Pfizer
9 December 2020 to 21 February 2021
Total reaction for drug = 85,179
Total fatal outcome reports = 212

AstraZeneca
4 January 2021 to 21 February 2021
Total reaction for drug = 157,637
Total fatal outcome reports = 244

Given the serious risk of adverse reaction [including death], I would be grateful if you could clarify how the raw data provided by M H R A is to be analysed and presented to the public by your “Health Data Team” to enable informed decisions to be taken by the general public. The information does not appear to be made available to the public in UK Government advertising campaign or by the mainstream media [including the BBC in daily news bulletins].

I look forward to receiving clarification at your earliest convenience. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


121 Response

Dear Wynne,

Thank you for your email.

ONS do not have access to the MHRA data you reference, however we publish data on deaths involving adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in our Monthly Mortality Analysis bulletin (see Table 12). This is based on information provided on the death certificate and shows there have been no deaths involving the COVID-19 vaccine so far in England and Wales.

We are also working to link information on whether an individual has received a COVID-19 vaccine with death record data, to compare the mortality rate and causes of death between those who did and did not have a vaccine. Once we have finalised these plans a publication date will be announced on our Release Calendar.

Best wishes,

Danielle

Danielle Cornish | Senior Social Researcher | Mortality Analysis | Health Analysis and Life Events | Health Analysis and Pandemic Insights

Office for National Statistics | Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol | health.data@ons.gov.uk | www.ons.gov.uk| @ONS


Bookmark

No account yet? Register