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]

To View VOLUME – 1 [Index Nos. 01 – 100]To View VOLUME – 3 [Index Nos. 201 – 300]


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.

Last Updated: 20th of November 2021

 


 INDEX No.

 Click on Index Number below to go to content

CORRESPONDENCE   SUBJECT/   TITLE

 

200 To: Freedom of Information Team, Public Health Wales, 2 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff.

Subject: Diagnostic test – Covid 19 Delta Variant.

199 To: Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Funding of £200,000 provided by Welsh Government to Swansea University working in conjunction with Innoture

198 To: Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Request for voluntary Regulatory Impact Assessment [R I A]

197 To: Freedom of Information Team, UK Health Security Agency [former PHE], Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London.

Subject: RT-PCR testing at private laboratory suspended

196 To: Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Covid Status Check Schemes – Wales

195 To:  Press Office, UK Health Security Agency, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London.

Subject: Clarification on role of U K Health Security Agency

194 To:  Customer Contact Team, Drinking Water Inspectorate [D T I], Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [D E F R A], U K Government.

Subject: Use of Graphene Oxide in potable water filtration

193 To: Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Request for voluntary Regulatory Impact Assessment [RIA] 


192
To:  Freedom of Information Team,,Department for Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London.

Subject: Protocol for disclosing conflict of interest – Senior medical / scientific advisors to DHSC

191 To:  Customer Service Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Project Smart Safety Surveillance [Project 3-S]

190 To: Dr Frank Atherton, Chief Medical Officer [Wales], Population Health Directorate, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Influenza Vaccines for the 2021 / 22 season 

189  To:  Freedom of Information Team, Hywel Dda University Health Board, Corporate Offices, Ystwyth Building, St David’s Park, Job’s Well Road, Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire.

Subject: Primary Care [Moderna Vaccine Covid 19 Immunisation Scheme] Directions 2021

188 To:  Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Covid Passport for events and nightclubs in Wales

187 To:  Freedom of Information Team, M H R A, 10 South Colonnade, London.

Subject: CoV Boost Study – Request for Information

186 To:  Well Healthcare Services, Customer Care Team, Merchant Warehouse, 21 Castle Street, Manchester.

Subject:  Covid 19 P C R home test kits

185 To: Privacy Transparency and Ethics Team, NHS Digital, 7 and 8 Wellington Place, Leeds
West Yorkshire.
Subject: Covid Pass for entry to place of work or social event
184 To:  LGFR.Consultations@gov.wales, Welsh Government, 5th Floor Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay.

Subject:  Regulatory Impact Assessment [R I A] for Rating [Wales] [Coronavirus] Regulations 2021

183 To:  J C V I Secretariat, Public health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London.

Subject:  Covid 19 RT-PCR test data presented to J C V I  

182 To: Freedom of Information Officer, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: £7.2 million gift of Personal Protective Equipment [P P E] from Wales to Namibia Africa  

181 To:  Gordon Ashworth, Director, Consumer Protection, Competition and Markets Authority [CMA], The Cabot, 25 Cabot Square, London.

Subject:   PCR Covid 19 Test Providers – harmful practices

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

Subject: Coronavirus [Covid 19] – Antibody testing

179 To:  Customer Service Team, Customer Service Centre,  Ceredigion County Council, Canolfan Rheidol, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth.

Subject:   Covid 19 infection data provided to local media & “Gold Command” Status

178 To:  J C V I Secretariat, Public health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London.

Subject: J C V I Annual Register of Members Interests

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

Subject:  Use of Graphene Oxide in water filtration

176 To:  Freedom of Information Officer, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government,
Cathays Park, Cardiff
Subject:  Covid 19 risk assessments by hospitality industry in Wales – effective from 7 August 2021.
175 To:  Freedom of Information Officer, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject:  Covid 19 Alert Level 0 Wales – FAQ updated 6 August 2021

174 To:  St George’s University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust.

Subject:  Covid 19 Vaccines in Pregnancy [Preg-CoV] Trial- IRAS No. 30115

173c To:  Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

173b To:  Dr June Raine, ,Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,  [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject:  Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

173
To: Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London

Subject: Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

 

172 To:  Freedom of Information Team, N H S – Wales.

Subject:  Established Process for obtaining informed consent for vaccinations

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

Subject:   Pfizer Vaccine roll-out – Vulnerable children aged 12 to 17

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

Subject: Covid 19 daily testing to avoid the need to self-isolate

169 To:  Rt Hon Mark Drakeford MS, First Minister, Welsh Government, 5th Floor Ty Hywel, 
Cardiff Bay.
Subject: Invalidity of RT-PCR testing process in Wales
168 To:  Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London.

Subject: Confirmation that Health Secretary has tested positive for Covid 19

167 To:  Director General and Editor in Chief, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London.
Subject: Covid 19 – Misleading information provided by BBC 16 July 2021
166 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Department for Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London.

Subject:  Health and Social Care Act 2008 – Statutory Instrument [Regulated Activities]

165 To:  Customer Services Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: V-Safe Covid 19 Vaccine Pregnancy Register

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

Subject:  Covid 19 gene-editing therapies [vaccines] – Informed Consent

163 To:  Health and Social Services Committee, House of Commons, London.

Subject: Covid 19 – The Science behind the RT-PCR test

162 To: Freedom of Information Team, NHS Wales.

Subject: NHS Wales External Whistleblowing Policy

161 To:  Health and Social Care Committee, Welsh Parliament, Cardiff Bay.

Subject: Covid 19 – The Science behind the RT-PCR test

160 Open letter to: Director General and Editor in Chief, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London.

Subject: BBC New – Coronavirus “Case” Numbers

159 Open letter to:  Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS, Minister for Health and Social Services, Welsh Government, 5th Floor Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay.

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccination roll-out in Wales

158 Open letter to:  Eifion Evans, Chief Executive Officer, Ceredigion County Council, Canolfan Rheidol, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth.

Subject: Covid Safe Zones at Cardigan and Aberaeron

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

Subject: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

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

Subject: Genomic Sequencing data harvested from Covid 19 RT-PCR test results

155 To:  Customer Service Team, Customer Service Centre, Ceredigion County Council, Canolfan Rheidol, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth.

Subject: Modifications to public highway and foot-way Pendre Cardigan

154 To: Customer Service Team, Customer Service Centre, Ceredigion County Council, Canolfan Rheidol, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth.

Subject: Modifications to public highway layout at Cardigan Town

153 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Covid 19 Ferret Register Wales

152 To:  Customer Contact Team, COG-UK Consortium, Addenbrooks Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridgeshire. 

Subject: COG-UK – Role of Covid 19 RT-PCR test in genome sequencing process

151 To:  Health and Social Care Committee, House of Commons, London.

Subject:   Health Committee Report entitled “The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”

150 To: Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London

Subject: Covid 19 Janssen Vaccine –  Marketing Authorisation No. P L G B 00242/0742 – Concerns regarding premature emergency authorisation for use in the human population

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

Subject: Covid 19 Pfizer / BioNTech gene-editing treatment [vaccine] – Emergency authorisation for use in children [12 – 15 years of age].

148 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Information Service, National Health Service, [NHS] Wales.

Subject: Covid 19 vaccination programme – Wales. Request for information. – Spike protein mRNA vaccine.

147 To:  Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS, Minister for Health and Social Services, Welsh Government, 5th Floor, Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay.

Subject: Covid 19 – Additional £32 Million allocated in Wales for contact tracing based on RT-PCR test results – Request for review

146 To:  Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS, Minister for Health and Social Services, Welsh Government, 5th Floor, Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay, CF99 1NA

Subject: Covid 19 Certificate of Vaccination [Vaccine Passport] – Wales

145 To:  Customer Contact Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject:   Covid 19 Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine

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

Subject: Doctors for Covid Ethics – Paper dated 20 April 2021

143 To:  Director General and Editor in Chief, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London.

Subject: Tragic death following vaccination

142 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London

Subject: National Immunisation Management System [N I M S]

141 To:  Open letter to: Director General and Editor in Chief, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London.

Subject: Journalistic Integrity at the BBC

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

Subject: Covid 19 – Sewage monitoring to provide early warning of coronavirus outbreak

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

Subject:  “Cov-Boost Study” to evaluate Covid 19 vaccine boosters

138 To:  Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject:  Covid 19 Adverse drug reactions to experimental mRNA / DNA based gene-editing treatments

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

Subject: Validity of Covid 19  RT-PCR test – external peer review by 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists.

136 To:  Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Covid 19 Adverse reactions to experimental gene-editing treatments – Quality of information

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

Subject: Serious Adverse Reactions to experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatments: Financial Compensation Scheme

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

Subject: 60 million Pfizer doses on order for booster vaccines in Autumn 2021

133 To:  Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London

Subject:   Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study] – Request for suspension / termination

132 To: Customer Contact Centre, Office for National Statistics [O N S], Room D625, Government Buildings, Cardiff Road, Newport, South Wales.

Subject: Synchronisation of data recorded by O N S and M H R A

131 To: Rt Hon Vaughan Gethin MS, Minister for Health and Social Services, Welsh Government, 5th Floor, Ty Hywel, Cardiff Bay.

Subject: Covid 19 Moderna vaccine roll-out in Wales

130 To:  Customer Services Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Role of M H R A as independent medical regulator

129 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.
Subject: Covid 19 Vaccines – Risk v Benefit analysis
128 To:  Freedom of Information Team, Department for Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street, London.

Subject: Panorama Undercover Investigation – Covid testing laboratory

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

Subject: Coronavirus Crisis – Conflicts of Interest

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

Subject:  Covid 19 national vaccination programme – Accountability for national roll-out decision

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

Subject:  Covid 19 vaccines: Adverse Reaction Reports from M H R A

124 To:  Customer Contact Team, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London. 

Subject: General Vaccine Approval Process

123 To:  Rt Hon Meg Hillier MP, Chair – Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons, London.

Subject: Public Accounts Committee Report – Concerns regarding £37 billion budget for Test and Trace Programme

122 To:  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: R T – P C R test for Covid 19 diagnosis.

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

From: GO-Science public enquiries
Sent: 15 March 2021 17:48
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru
Subject: RE: C J 109: Covid 19 – New Variants of Concern – Bristol and Liverpool

Good Afternoon,

Please find response attached, [LINK]

Our contact address for enquiries is contact@go-science.gov.uk

Kind regards

Government Office for Science


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

FOI 21/160

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.  

We confirm we have published the data and this is available to view at the following link of our website page below

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

Please note this information will be published weekly.

If the information you require is ADR separate to covid vaccines please let us know and we will investigate this further for you.

Kind Regards

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Telephone 020 3080 6000

 


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

Subject: Re: FOI 21/282 – C J 112: Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study]
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:52:55 +0000
From: FOILicensing <FOILicensing@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>, freedomofinformation@dhsc.gov.uk <freedomofinformation@dhsc.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Jones

Many thanks for your email.

Please find attached a copy of the authorisation provided by MHRA for the COV 006 study, with redactions made under Section 40 (Personal information) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

Best regards

The FOI Licensing Team


113 Enquiry

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

Date: 16  02  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: 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

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1353572
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:41:52 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1353572).

Yours sincerely, 

Le-anne Frankson
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


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

Dear Wynne Jones

Please find attached Public Health England’s response to your request. [LINK]

FOI Team

Public Accountability Unit

Public Health England

foi@phe.gov.uk

Tel: 020 8327 6920 

www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk


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

Subject: Freedom of Information Request (Our Ref: FOI-2102-1339437) NHSE:0862202
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:41:42 +0000
From: FOITEAMCRMMAILBOX (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT – X24) <england.foicrm@nhs.net>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 19 February 2021. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your request.

Your exact request was:

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

NHS England holds some information in relation to your request.

The total budget for the Covid 19 vaccine advertising campaign.

NHS England does not hold a budget for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The coordination of paid-for activity relating to vaccine promotion is led by the Cabinet Office. As such you may wish to re-direct this part of your request to the Cabinet Office. You can contact the Cabinet Office using the contact details provided below:

FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Room 405
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS
United Kingdom
Email: foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
The total number of celebrities recruited by NHS England to advertise Covid 19 vaccines.
The total sum to be paid in fees and expenses, from public funds, to the celebrities in [2] above.

NHS England has not recruited any celebrities to advertise COVID-19 vaccines.

NHS England will seek to work with celebrities who volunteer their time to help get important messages to the public; where this is the case this is done on an informal basis, and no payment is requested, offered or made.

We hope this information is helpful. However, if you are dissatisfied, you have the right to ask for an internal review. This should be requested in writing within two months of the date of this letter. Your correspondence should be labelled “Internal Review” and should outline your concerns and/or the area(s) you would like the review to consider. Internal Review requests should be sent to:

NHS England
PO Box 16738
REDDITCH
B97 9PT

Email: england.contactus@nhs.net

Please quote the reference number FOI-2102-1339437 in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can be contacted at the following weblink:
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
Please note there is no charge for making an appeal.
Please be aware that in line with the Information Commissioner’s directive on the disclosure of information under the FOI Act, your request will be anonymised and published on our website as part of our disclosure log.

Please do not reply to this email. This message has been sent from a central mailbox. To communicate with NHS England regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, enquiries or complaints we ask these are sent directly to NHS England’s customer contact centre. This is to ensure all communications are progressed correctly. Their postal address, telephone number and email details are as follows: PO Box 16738, Redditch, B97 9PT; 0300 3 11 22 33, england.contactus@nhs.net.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information
Communications Team
Office of the Chairs, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer

NHS England
PO Box 16738
REDDITCH
B97 9PT

Tel: 0300 311 22 33
Email: england.contactus@nhs.net


115 Response (2)

Subject: FOI response – Ref: FOI2021/13441
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 15:14:17 +0100
From: Cabinet Office FOI Team <no-reply@cabinetoffice.ecase.co.uk>
Reply-To: Cabinet Office FOI Team <foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your recent Freedom of Information request (reference FOI2021/13441).

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team

Cabinet Office


115 Response (3)

Response received 22/10/2021[LINK]


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

Subject: Cabinet Office response TO2021/18048
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:00:00 +0100
From: Public Correspondence <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Wynne Jones

Thank you for contacting the Cabinet Office, I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

First, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your emails dated from 20 December 2020 – 3 September 2021, this was due to administrative oversight, and we have put in place checks in place to avoid a recurrence of this issue.

The Cabinet Office has reviewed the list of correspondence you recently compiled.  The majority of the subjects below fall under the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). You should consider contacting DHSC directly for further information relating to your subjects.

Contact DHSC

 CJ 102: PCR test, Pfizer vaccine, Great Reset – Letter to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO – 20 December 2020. 

CJ 105: Validity of RT-PCR test and Lateral Flow test – to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO, UKSA, BBC – 16 January 21.

CJ 108: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Nuremberg Code – to Cabinet Office – 27 January 2021.

CJ 125: Adverse Reaction Reports Covid 19 vaccines – to Cabinet Office with cc to UK PAC – 15 March 2021.

CJ 126: National roll out of vaccines – Accountability for decision – 17 March 2021.

CJ 135: Serious Adverse Reactions to experimental Covid 19 vaccines: Financial Compensation – to Cabinet Office – 30 April 2021.

CJ 144: Doctors for Covid Ethics – Paper 20 April 2021 – to Cabinet Office – 31 May 2021.

CJ 170:  Covid 19 daily testing to avoid the need to self-isolate – to Cabinet Office cc to Parliament – 23 July 2021.

CJ 168: Confirmation that Health Secretary tested positive for Covid 19 – to Cabinet Office – 18 July 2021. 

This FOI request will need to be directed at the FOI Team at DHSC.

 The Cabinet Office has provided a response to the following correspondence below;

CJ 116: National Vaccine advertising campaign – Complaint to Cabinet Office – 19 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this complaint is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19515).

CJ 117: Vaccine Passports – to Cabinet Office with cc to Ben Lake – 23 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this correspondence is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19516)

CJ 119: Coronavirus crisis – Independent Public Inquiry – to Cabinet Office – 1 March 2021. [LINK]

This correspondence was responded to by the Cabinet Office on 20 September (Ref: TO2021/18218), I have attached this again for your convenience.

 I hope this is of assistance to you.

Thank you, once again, for writing.

Yours sincerely

Naomi


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

Subject: Cabinet Office response TO2021/18048
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:00:00 +0100
From: Public Correspondence <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Wynne Jones

Thank you for contacting the Cabinet Office, I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

First, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your emails dated from 20 December 2020 – 3 September 2021, this was due to administrative oversight, and we have put in place checks in place to avoid a recurrence of this issue.

The Cabinet Office has reviewed the list of correspondence you recently compiled.  The majority of the subjects below fall under the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). You should consider contacting DHSC directly for further information relating to your subjects.

Contact DHSC

 CJ 102: PCR test, Pfizer vaccine, Great Reset – Letter to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO – 20 December 2020. 

CJ 105: Validity of RT-PCR test and Lateral Flow test – to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO, UKSA, BBC – 16 January 21.

CJ 108: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Nuremberg Code – to Cabinet Office – 27 January 2021.

CJ 125: Adverse Reaction Reports Covid 19 vaccines – to Cabinet Office with cc to UK PAC – 15 March 2021.

CJ 126: National roll out of vaccines – Accountability for decision – 17 March 2021.

CJ 135: Serious Adverse Reactions to experimental Covid 19 vaccines: Financial Compensation – to Cabinet Office – 30 April 2021.

CJ 144: Doctors for Covid Ethics – Paper 20 April 2021 – to Cabinet Office – 31 May 2021.

CJ 170:  Covid 19 daily testing to avoid the need to self-isolate – to Cabinet Office cc to Parliament – 23 July 2021.

CJ 168: Confirmation that Health Secretary tested positive for Covid 19 – to Cabinet Office – 18 July 2021. 

This FOI request will need to be directed at the FOI Team at DHSC.

 The Cabinet Office has provided a response to the following correspondence below;

CJ 116: National Vaccine advertising campaign – Complaint to Cabinet Office – 19 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this complaint is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19515).

CJ 117: Vaccine Passports – to Cabinet Office with cc to Ben Lake – 23 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this correspondence is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19516)

CJ 119: Coronavirus crisis – Independent Public Inquiry – to Cabinet Office – 1 March 2021. [LINK]

This correspondence was responded to by the Cabinet Office on 20 September (Ref: TO2021/18218), I have attached this again for your convenience.

 I hope this is of assistance to you.

Thank you, once again, for writing.

Yours sincerely

Naomi


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

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1309753
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:35:30 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1309753).

Yours sincerely, 

Piper Hewitt-Dudding
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


119 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 01  03  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: 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

Subject: Cabinet Office response to your enquiry – Ref: TO2021/18218
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:36:53 +0100
From: Cabinet Office Correspondence <no-reply@cabinetoffice.ecase.co.uk>
Reply-To: Cabinet Office Correspondence <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for contacting the Cabinet Office. Please find a response attached [LINK].

Yours sincerely,

Public Correspondence Team

Cabinet Office


119 Response (2)

Subject: Cabinet Office response TO2021/18048
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:00:00 +0100
From: Public Correspondence <publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Wynne Jones

Thank you for contacting the Cabinet Office, I apologise for the delay in replying to you.

First, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your emails dated from 20 December 2020 – 3 September 2021, this was due to administrative oversight, and we have put in place checks in place to avoid a recurrence of this issue.

The Cabinet Office has reviewed the list of correspondence you recently compiled.  The majority of the subjects below fall under the remit of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). You should consider contacting DHSC directly for further information relating to your subjects.

Contact DHSC

 CJ 102: PCR test, Pfizer vaccine, Great Reset – Letter to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO – 20 December 2020. 

CJ 105: Validity of RT-PCR test and Lateral Flow test – to Cabinet Office with cc to NAO, UKSA, BBC – 16 January 21.

CJ 108: Covid 19 Vaccination Programme – Nuremberg Code – to Cabinet Office – 27 January 2021.

CJ 125: Adverse Reaction Reports Covid 19 vaccines – to Cabinet Office with cc to UK PAC – 15 March 2021.

CJ 126: National roll out of vaccines – Accountability for decision – 17 March 2021.

CJ 135: Serious Adverse Reactions to experimental Covid 19 vaccines: Financial Compensation – to Cabinet Office – 30 April 2021.

CJ 144: Doctors for Covid Ethics – Paper 20 April 2021 – to Cabinet Office – 31 May 2021.

CJ 170:  Covid 19 daily testing to avoid the need to self-isolate – to Cabinet Office cc to Parliament – 23 July 2021.

CJ 168: Confirmation that Health Secretary tested positive for Covid 19 – to Cabinet Office – 18 July 2021. 

This FOI request will need to be directed at the FOI Team at DHSC.

 The Cabinet Office has provided a response to the following correspondence below;

CJ 116: National Vaccine advertising campaign – Complaint to Cabinet Office – 19 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this complaint is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19515).

CJ 117: Vaccine Passports – to Cabinet Office with cc to Ben Lake – 23 February 2021. [LINK]

The response to this correspondence is attached below (Ref: TO2021/19516)

CJ 119: Coronavirus crisis – Independent Public Inquiry – to Cabinet Office – 1 March 2021. [LINK]

This correspondence was responded to by the Cabinet Office on 20 September (Ref: TO2021/18218), I have attached this again for your convenience.

 I hope this is of assistance to you.

Thank you, once again, for writing.

Yours sincerely

Naomi


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


122 Enquiry

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [M H R A]

10 South Colonnade

Canary Wharf

London

E14 4PU

Date: 08  03  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject: R T – P C R test for Covid 19 diagnosis

Thank you for your further update and apology for the delay in responding to my letter dated 15 November 2020. While I await your formal reply, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  1. A copy of the authorisation for emergency use of the “RT-PCR test” issued by M H R A for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus and variants
  2. A copy of the authorisation for emergency use of the “Lateral Flow test” issued by M H R A for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus and variants

If you consider it necessary any personal data, or commercially sensitive information, contained in the documentation can be redacted to comply with the data management principles set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 and G D P R. The “explanatory note” below should help to explain the reason for my request for information.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Explanatory Note
I am advised that the RT-PCR test has not been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] but has received authorisation for emergency use by the FDA, hence my request for clarification with regard to the approval / authorisation status in the UK of these two diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 virus.


122 Response

Subject: Internal review – FOI 21-238
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:29:43 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Internal Review – FOI 21/238

Mr Wynne Jones

Thank you for your email.

Please find attached [LINK[ the response to your Internal Review,

Kind Regards

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


122 Response (ICO)

 COMPLAINT BY BGB AGAINST MHRA UPHELD by:

Roger Cawthorne  
Senior Case Officer 
Information Commissioner’s Office

Subject: IC-100061-Q3Q9 Service of Decision Notice
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 17:24:37 +0000
From: ICO Casework <icocasework@ico.org.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

10 November 2021   

Case Reference: IC-100061-Q3Q9   

Dear Mr Jones,

Freedom of Information Act 2000
MHRA
Case Reference Number: IC-100061-Q3Q9

Please find attached [LINK] a decision notice relating to your complaint about a request for information that you submitted to the above public authority. Please note that you will not receive a paper copy.

Your complaint has been considered by the Commissioner and the decision notice sets out the reasons for the decision. If you disagree with the decision notice, you have the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Your appeal rights are explained on the final page of the notice.

The Commissioner will publish this decision on the ICO website, but will remove all names and addresses of complainants. If the public authority also chooses to reproduce this decision notice, then the Commissioner expects similar steps to be taken.

You should write to us if the MHRA fails to comply with any steps specified by the Commissioner in the decision notice. It is important to note that our power to commence legal proceedings in this situation is discretionary and although we will look into the matter, formal action will not be appropriate in all cases. 

Yours sincerely,


Roger Cawthorne  
Senior Case Officer 
Information Commissioner’s Office

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF
T. 0330 414 6455 ico.org.uk twitter.com/iconews
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice at www.ico.org.uk/privacy-notice.

Please be aware we are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the data protection laws and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website (www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will withhold information where there is a good reason to do so. 


123 Enquiry

Rt Hon Meg Hillier MP
Chair – Public Accounts Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Date: 10  03  2021

Dear Chair, Public Accounts Committee

Subject: C J 123: Public Accounts Committee Report – Concerns regarding £37 billion budget for Test and Trace Programme

I refer to the above subject and attach abstract from an article published by “Yorkshire Post” 10 March 2021 [LINK]. As a taxpayer, I share your Committee’s concern regarding the astronomical budget of £37 billion for the test and trace programme and the use of private consultants with some receiving a rate of £6,624 per day. In addition to the serious concerns raised by your Public Accounts Committee [PAC], I wish to draw your attention to the latest scientific evidence regarding the validity of the RT-PCR test. I attach copy of external peer review published 27 November 2020 undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists [LINK]. You will note that 10 major scientific flaws were found at molecular and methodological level with the review concluding that the test should not be used for clinical diagnosis of viral infection. This is considered to be a fraudulent test. 

I would be grateful if PAC could examine [if necessary in conjunction with the National Audit Office] whether a budget allocation of £37 billion for a test that can not be used to diagnose viral infection amounts to misfeasance or malfeasance by government ministers. I hope you find the information contained in the peer review helpful in holding the government to account. The stakeholders listed below have received a copy for their information. It is a matter for “National Audit Office” and “Audit Wales” to decide whether they wish to initiate their own investigation to establish whether public funds have been misused.    Thank you.  
 
Yours sincerely,

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
Public Accounts Committee – Welsh Parliament
National Audit Office
Audit Wales


123 Response

Subject: RE: C J 123: Public Accounts Committee Report – Concerns regarding £37 billion budget for Test and Trace Programme
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 09:31:58 +0000
From: SHAVE, Ben <shaveb@parliament.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru 

 

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for contacting the Public Accounts Committee. Please accept my apologies for not responding to your letter dated 10 March. We receive a large volume of written and electronic correspondence and unfortunately yours slipped through the net. Apologies once again.

As you will know, the Committee published its report examining Test, Track & Trace on 10 March, and expect to receive the government’s response this month. The Committee will then decide how to proceed, but given the ongoing importance of the programme, I would expect them to return to it, possibly through the publication of a follow-up report or a public session, before the summer.

We also currently have an inquiry tracking the ongoing costs of Covid-19 spending, and our colleagues at the National Audit Office are also currently finalising a report looking at what initial lessons can be learned from the government’s pandemic response to date, which the Committee intends to use to inform an inquiry. I would expect both to consider some of the issues your letter raises, and the Committee would welcome a written submission ahead of any evidence sessions, once confirmed.

Please do keep an eye on our webpage and Twitter for updates, and thank you again for taking the time to write to us.

Best regards,

Ben Shave

Public Accounts Committee 
+44 (0)20 7219 0724 | Text relay: 18001 020 7219 7347
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA 

 

Website: www.parliament.uk/pac Twitter: @commonsPAC


124 Enquiry

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

Date: 12  03  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: C J 124:   General Vaccine Approval Process

I refer to the above subject and attach a document published by the “Vaccine Knowledge Group” at University of Oxford [LINK]. The document was last updated 11 January 2021. The document clearly sets out the role of M H R A in the authorisation for temporary supply and emergency use of unlicensed experimental vaccines under Regulation 174 of Human Medicine Regulations 2012.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with details of the formal M H R A approval process for licensed vaccines. If the approval process is explained on your website a link to the relevant information will suffice. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


124 Response

Subject: CSC 40826 – C J 124: General Vaccine Approval Process
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:28:46 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>

 

Our Reference: CSC 40826

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

The authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines was done through an expedited rolling review. A ‘rolling review’ can be used to complete the assessment of a promising medicine or vaccine during a public health emergency in the shortest time possible. This is done as the packages of data become available from ongoing studies on a staggered basis. The temporary authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified vaccine batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted to MHRA. These authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.

All vaccines are tested through three phases of clinical trials to ensure they meet the gold standard. Phase 1 trials are with a small group of people to make sure there are no safety concerns and determines the appropriate dosage for the best immune response. Phase 2 trials are conducted on a larger group of people to check the vaccine works consistently and that the immune response is sufficient. Phase 3 trials test the vaccines on thousands of people for scientists to assess if the vaccine is producing immunity that will prevent disease. Usually, these phases are run in sequence, but in an effort to find a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, once safety has been ascertained through Phase 1, Phases 2 and 3 are being run in parallel. Extensive checks and balances are required at every stage of the development of a vaccine, and this is no different for a Covid-19 vaccine. No stages in the vaccine development processes were bypassed.

Information on the study conducted using the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and its results are available in a peer-reviewed journal, the New England Journal of Medicine. A link to this is provided below:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

The approval for use of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in the UK followed a rigorous scientific assessment of all the available evidence of quality, safety and effectiveness by the UK regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA expert scientists and clinicians reviewed data from the laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine, and also considered the conditions for its safe supply and distribution. The decision was made with advice from the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), the government’s independent expert scientific advisory body. Regarding the MHRA approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, further information (including information for physicians and recipients of the vaccine, and Public Assessment Reports [PARs] for each vaccine) are available on the MHRA website. Links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

Further to the above, the Moderna vaccine has also recently been authorised for use. Further information on this is provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

Further guidance of how to apply for a marketing authorisation and the authorisation process are provided on our website:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-licence-to-market-a-medicine-in-the-uk

Kind Regards,

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Telephone 020 3080 6000

gov.uk/mhra Stay connected

For information on how the Agency uses your personal data and your data protection rights, please see our three centres’ Privacy Notices: MHRA, CPRD and NIBSC.


125 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 15  03  2021

Dear Correspondence Team,

Subject: Covid 19 vaccines: Adverse Reaction Reports from M H R A

I refer to the above subject and attach summary of information provided by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [M H R A] [LINK]. In view of the significant number of adverse reactions [including death] following vaccination reported by the regulator, I would be grateful if you could circulate the information to Cabinet Members to inform government action regarding ongoing vaccination roll-out. I take the view that the information should also be made available to the general public in an “awareness campaign” to ensure that informed decisions can be taken on whether the public wish to receive the experimental unlicensed vaccines. Information regarding vaccine-induced adverse reaction [including death]  does not appear to be provided by the mainstream media, including the BBC in their daily news bulletins.

I would be grateful if you could confirm proposed action by UK Government and whether an “awareness campaign” is now to be launched. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones 

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee
cc   Rt Hon Ben Lake MP


125 Response

Awaiting reply


126 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 17  03  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: C J 126: Covid 19 national vaccination programme – Accountability for national roll-out decision

I write to advise you that I am now receiving numerous requests, from the general public, for clarification regarding “ministerial accountability” for the decision to roll-out the experimental unlicensed mRNA and DNA based vaccines, as a significant number of adverse reactions [including death] has been recorded, as outlined in attached document [LINK]. I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify whether accountability for the roll-out decision rests with:

  1. the U K Prime Minister, or
  2. the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [S o S H S C], who requested temporary emergency authorisation under Regulation 174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012, or
  3. the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] who granted temporary emergency authorisation under Regulation 174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012, following a request from S o S H S C.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


126 Response

Response letter from DHSC

[LINK]


127 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 20  03  2021

Dear Correspondence team

Subject: Coronavirus Crisis – Conflicts of Interest

My attention has been drawn to an article published by “Daily Expose” 12 February 2021 in respect of the above subject. A copy is attached hereto [LINK]. Would you please note the content. 

In view of the investigation findings I would be grateful if the Cabinet Office could undertake an internal review to establish the facts or, alternatively, refer the matter for external review / assessment by U K Parliament “Public Accounts Committee” or “National Audit Office”. The review / assessment is considered necessary to restore public confidence. I look forward to your observations at your convenience. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee.
cc   National Audit Office.


127 Response

View reply [LINK]


128 Enquiry

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

Date: 31  03  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 128: Panorama Undercover Investigation – Covid testing laboratory

I refer to the BBC Panorama Undercover Investigation at Milton Keynes Covid 19 mega laboratory. The programme is available to view at the link below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tqjj

I note that the “Department of Health and Social Care” [D H S C] intend to undertake a full investigation into all the allegations of malpractice made in the programme. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me, under F O I Act 2000, with a copy of the terms of reference of the internal D H S C investigation and the contact details [name and email address] of the official tasked with undertaking the investigation.

Additional information is set out in the explanatory note below. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Explanatory Note:
The information is required in connection with an ongoing external investigation into the validity of the RT-PCR test kits used at the Milton Keynes Covid 19 mega laboratory. I have information that may assist your internal investigation.


128 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1319768
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:48:04 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne BGB CJ Editor

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1319768 ).

Yours sincerely, 

Ed Franklyn
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


129 Enquiry

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

Date: 03  04  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 129:   Covid 19 Vaccines – Risk v Benefit analysis

Following the decision by Germany and Netherlands to restrict the use of the Covid 19 AstraZeneca vaccine in people under 60 years of age due to blood clotting concerns I would be pleased to receive the following information under the F O I Act 2000.

  1. Copy of the latest version of MHRA “Risk v Benefit analysis” for Covid 19 AstraZeneca / Oxford vaccine, and
  2. Copy of the latest version of MHRA “Risk v Benefit analysis” for Covid 19 Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine.

Disclosure of information is in the wider public interest. It will ensure the public are able to take informed decisions on whether they wish to receive the experimental unlicensed vaccines.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


129 Response

Subject: RE: FOI 21/347 – C J 129: Covid 19 Vaccines – Risk v Benefit analysis
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 13:40:42 +0000
From: Pharmacovigilanceservice <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Ms Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the response to your FOI request.

Kind regards,

FOI Team

Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division

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


130 Enquiry

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

Date: 07  04  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject: Role of M H R A as independent medical regulator

The Prime Minister is on record as referring to M H R A as an independent medical regulator. In order that I may establish the extent of that independence I would be pleased to receive the following information under the F O I Act 2000.

  1. Total funding received by M H R A in 2019 / 20 financial year, itemised by funding provider.
  2. Total funding received by M H R A in 2020 / 21 financial year, itemised by funding provider.

If the information is readily available in M H R A annual reports published on your website, or in M H R A disclosure log, a link to the relevant documents will suffice. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


130 Response

Subject: FOI 21/365 – C J 130: Role of M H R A as independent medical regulator
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:47:13 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

FOI 21/365

 Dear Mr Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

The Agency is funded mainly from fees and sales from multiple, diverse and global sources, with the remainder of funds coming from Central Government or research funding. 

The amount of funding received from central government can be found on our annual reports.

19/20 = https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency-annual-report-and-accounts-2019-to-2020

Our financial year runs from 1st April to 31st March so 20/21 accounts are not yet available.

Yours sincerely

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


130 Response (Additional Information)

Subject: FOI 21/365 – C J 130: Role of M H R A as independent medical regulator
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 12:02:50 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your email.

Please find attached [LINK] a list of invoices raised during 19/20, including customer details.

Note that because this is based on invoices, rather than recognised income, it will not fully reconcile with the annual accounts.  It is currently within 2%.

Yours sincerely

 

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


131 Enquiry

Rt Hon Vaughan Gethin MS
Minister for Health and Social Services
Welsh Government
5th Floor
Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 08  04  2021

Dear Minister

Subject: Covid 19 Moderna vaccine roll-out in Wales

I note, from media reports, that the Covid 19 “Moderna” vaccine is being used in Wales with effect from 7 April 2021. As you are no doubt aware, this mRNA experimental unlicensed vaccine has not been approved for use. It has been authorised for temporary emergency use by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency [MHRA] under S.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Many eminent members of the medical profession have serious concerns regarding vaccine safety. Additional information is available in the attached documentation, [LINK 1], [LLINK 2] as listed below.

  1. Moderna vaccine Fact Sheet: a live document last updated 21 February 2021.
  2. Summary from EudraVigilance report to 13 March 2021, this being information recorded by the “European Medicines Agency“. 5,939 injuries [including 973 deaths] following roll-out of Moderna vaccine.

As the health service in Wales is a devolved function, and in view of the evidence now available, I would be grateful if Welsh Government would urgently consider launching a “public awareness campaign” to draw to the public’s attention the risks of injury [including death] from this experimental unlicensed vaccine. This would ensure that the public are able to take informed decisions on whether they wish to receive the experimental vaccine. You will be aware that experimentation on human beings is a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code.

I look forward to your observations at your earliest convenience when you have examined the information presented in attached documentation. Thank you

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


131 Response

Subject: TO/VG/04311/21 RE: C J 131: Covid 19 Moderna vaccine roll-out in Wales
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:57:17 +0000
From: HSS-Corres.AQs-Main@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your e-mail below.  I have been asked to reply and must apologise for the delay – the Welsh Government has received an unprecedented amount of correspondence regarding the pandemic and I trust that you will understand why we have not replied sooner.

The number of people worldwide who have died with COVID-19 has passed one million with many regions still reporting surging numbers of new infections. In Wales, there have been many deaths and thousands more people hospitalised, or with ongoing health complications. People continue to get infected, and once the virus starts to spread it can do so rapidly. Being vaccinated will help to protect you and reduce the spread of this deadly virus.

For a vaccine to reach the general public it will have to work and be safe. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the Pfizer BioNTech, Oxford AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines after extensive testing.

Like all medicines, vaccines can cause side effects. Most of these are mild and short-term, and not everyone gets them.  The MHRA continually monitors safety during widespread use of any vaccine to ensure vaccines are performing as expected, to identify any new side effects that may arise, and to ensure the benefits continue to outweigh the risks. The MHRA publish weekly vaccine safety reports. This data shows that the vast majority of reported side effects are mild and all are in line with most types of vaccine, including the seasonal flu vaccine. These include sore arms and mild ‘flu-like’ symptoms, which reflect a normal immune response to vaccines and are short-lasting. These MHRA reports are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/latest-monitoring-data-confirms-safety-of-covid-19-vaccines

No effective medicine or vaccine is without risk and any side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness. Vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives. We would encourage everyone to take up the vaccine when offered an appointment unless specifically advised otherwise.

More information on vaccine approval is freely available can be accessed by the public here:

UK medicines regulator gives approval for first UK COVID-19 vaccine – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine approved – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Moderna vaccine becomes third COVID-19 vaccine approved by UK regulator – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) (Regulations) 2020 clarify in which situations pharmaceutical organisations would be immune in cases of civil liability; going forward, it will apply not just to companies that do their own manufacturing but also to those that outsource their manufacture. However, it should be noted:

  • The immunity offered is only partial
  • It won’t avail organisations if a problem is discovered with the product that elevates the inherent risk to a level that was higher than the public was entitled to expect (thus engaging Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987).
  • It also won’t avail them if there is a breach of the conditions imposed by the licensing authority that is sufficiently serious to justify setting aside the licensing authority’s recommendation. In such cases, companies may face legal action and associated costs from patients.

COVID vaccines have been given to millions of women with no evidence of fertility problems. Further information on COVID-19 vaccines and fertility is available from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The vaccine is not mandatory and people can choose whether to have the vaccine or not. Everyone eligible will receive information about the jab to help make up their minds.

If people have concerns, then they should discuss these with a healthcare professional, who will be fully informed of vaccine side effects, effectiveness and benefits and risks.

Further information about the vaccine programme in Wales can be found via the attached links:

https://gov.wales/covid-19-vaccination-strategy.

https://gov.wales/covid-19-vaccination-programme-weekly-updates

https://phw.nhs.wales/topics/immunisation-and-vaccines/covid-19-vaccination-information/about-the-vaccine/#Efficacy

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Richard Morgan
Tîm Business y Llywodraeth a Corfforaethol / Government and Corporate Business Team
Yr Adran Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol / Department for Health and Social Services


132 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Office for National Statistics [O N S ]
Room D625
Government Buildings
Cardiff Road
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8XG

Date: 10  04  2021

Dear Customer Contact Centre

Subject: C J 132: Synchronisation of data recorded by O N S and M H R A

Concerns have been drawn to my attention by members of the public regarding the quality of data / statistics provided by O N S, specifically regarding injuries [including  deaths] following the roll-out of the experimental unlicensed Covid 19 vaccines. A summary of details provided to 21 February 2021 by M H R A on this subject is attached [LINK]. The latest information is available on their website. I would be grateful if you could advise me whether O N S intends, henceforth, to synchronise data / statistics provided by O N S with the data / statistics provided by the medical regulator M H R A. This would help to restore public confidence in the quality of data / statistics published by O N S post-vaccination. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.           

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


132 Response

Subject: RE: C J 132: Synchronisation of data recorded by O N S and H M R A
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:02:53 +0000
From: Media Relations <Media.Relations@ons.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Hi Wynne,

Thank you for your enquiry.

The ONS reports deaths registered in England and Wales according to the causes of death stated on the death certificate, which are decided by a doctor or coroner. The doctor or coroner decides the causes of death to the best of their knowledge and professional judgement, after taking into account all available information such as lab tests or post mortem results, as well as symptoms and any other evidence.

Table 12 of our Monthly Mortality Analysis provides the number of deaths with ICD-10 codes related to COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate, including COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects.

Thanks,

Rhian


133 Enquiry

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

Date: 22  04  2021

Dear Dr June Raine

Subject:  Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study] – Request for suspension / termination

I refer to the above study and write to request that you give urgent consideration to using statutory powers available to MHRA, under Regulation 31 of Medicines for Human Use [Clinical Trials] Regulations 2004, to suspend / terminate the study in order to mitigate risk of harm to the children participating in the study. The relevant statute is attached [LINK]. Full details of the adverse reactions post-vaccination in adults is available on your “yellow card” reporting system.

I look forward to your response to my request at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


133 Response

Subject: C J 133: Oxford Covid 19 vaccine study in children [COV 006 Study] – Request for suspension / termination – CSC 47103
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 10:54:07 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Our Reference: CSC 47103

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

The trial you refer to is paused to dosing.

The public registry entry for this study shows the current status of this trial (“No longer recruiting”) ISRCTN – ISRCTN15638344: A phase II study of a candidate COVID-19 vaccine in children (COV006).

Any change to this status would require authorisation by MHRA (including advice/review by CHM).

Kind Regards

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Telephone 020 3080 6000

gov.uk/mhra Stay connected

For information on how the Agency uses your personal data and your data protection rights, please see our three centres’ Privacy Notices: MHRA, CPRD and NIBSC.

Read our guidance on coronavirus (COVID19)

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/mhra-guidance-on-coronavirus-covid-19


134 Enquiry

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

Date: 29  04  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: 60 million Pfizer doses on order for booster vaccines in Autumn 2021

I refer to the above subject and attach [LINK] abstract from article published in the “Telegraph” 29 April 2021. Reference is made to ongoing trials examining “mix and match” combinations of different Covid 19 vaccines. These have been granted temporary emergency authorisation under S.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012. From DHSC file records, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004.

Brief details of the ongoing trials examining “mix and match” combinations of different Covid 19 vaccines. For example, trial name, reference number, planned end date of trial, contact details of trial administrator, etc.

If the information is available on your website, a link to the relevant information will suffice. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.   

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


134 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1326650
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 18:44:10 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1326650 ).

Yours sincerely, 

Dorothy Crowe
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


135 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 30  04  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Serious Adverse Reactions to experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatments: Financial Compensation Scheme

I write to draw your attention to requests I have received from the general public for clarification regarding the financial compensation now available to those that have suffered life-changing injuries following the roll-out of the experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatments. As you are aware, these have not been approved for use by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [M H R A]. They have been authorised for temporary emergency use under S.174 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

Latest data regarding adverse reactions available from M H R A to 21 April 2021 is set out in the attached reports [LINK] [LINK]downloaded from their website, with the overall totals for the Pfizer – BioNTech and AstraZeneca gene-editing treatments provided below.

Total adverse reactions  =  722,732
Total fatal outcomes  = 1,032

As I understand it, the manufacturers of these gene-editing treatments and administrators [doctors and nurses] have been granted immunity from prosecution in the event of injuries to those that have received this treatment. In view of the life-changing adverse reactions [including blindness and death] now being recorded post-treatment, I would be grateful if you could advise me what financial compensation scheme funded by UK Government [and therefore the taxpayer] is available to those that have received life-changing injuries following the roll-out of the experimental mRNA / DNA based gene-editing treatments.

For file record purpose I wish to record, at this stage, that eminent members of the medical profession consider [for various reasons] the roll-out of experimental mRNA / DNA based treatments to be in breach of the Nuremberg Code regarding experimentation on the human population.

I look forward to receiving details of the financial compensation scheme, funded by UK Government, so that I may respond to serious concerns drawn to my attention by members of the public. Your prompt reply would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


135 Response

Reply from DHSC: [LINK]


136 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: 11  05  2021

Dear Dr June Raine

Subject: C J 136: Covid 19 Adverse reactions to experimental gene-editing treatments – Quality of information

I refer to the above subject. Concerns have been drawn to my attention by members of the public regarding the quality of information available in the public domain on your website. The information is presented in basic spreadsheet format and does not contain the same level of detail as that available from the American monitoring system “VAERS” available at the link below.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
There is no facility to interrogate the data on MHRA “yellow card”monitoring system to provide useful medical information to enable the public to take informed decisions. This contrasts with the helpful database, now developed by “U K Column News“, available at the following link.
https://yellowcard.ukcolumn.org/yellow-card-reports
In view of the recent substantial investment by MHRA in Artificial Intelligence [AI] software monitoring tool, I would be grateful if you could respond to the following enquiry.

  1. Does MHRA have any plans to improve the quality of information available to the public from your “yellow card” monitoring / reporting system.
  2. Does MHRA have any plans to investigate “fatal outcomes” following roll-out of the experimental gene-editing treatments.
  3. Can you please provide an approximate timeframe for formal approval of these experimental gene-editing treatments. They have, to date, been granted temporary emergency authorisation under S.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012.      

Your reply to the above enquiry will enable me to respond to the numerous requests for information now received from members of the public. Thank you.    

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


136 Response

Subject: CSC 49437 C J 136: Covid 19 Adverse reactions to experimental gene-editing treatments – Quality of information
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:44:56 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Our Reference: CSC 49437

Dear Wynne Jones

Thank you for your email.

The Weekly Summary of Yellow Card Reporting (Coronavirus vaccine – weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) provides Vaccine Analysis Prints in which you are able to see all reported reactions for each vaccine.  

As part of our signal detection processes, all adverse reaction reports received are individually assessed and cumulative information reviewed at regular intervals including those which are fatal.

Regarding the MHRA approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, further information (including information for physicians and recipients of the vaccine, and Public Assessment Reports [PARs] for each vaccine) are available on the MHRA website. Links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

Please note that a marketing authorisation was granted for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (Comirnaty) following a European Commission (EC) decision on 21 December 2020 (PLGB 53632/0002). Further information is available on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website, a link to this is provided below:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty

Please also note that a marketing authorisation was granted for the Moderna vaccine on 31 March 2021 following an EC Reliance Procedure (PLGB 53720/0002). Further information is available on the MHRA website and the EMA website, links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/covid-19-vaccine-moderna

A marketing authorisation has been granted for the Janssen Covid-19 vaccine on 28 May 2021. Further information is available via the below link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-janssen

In addition, a marketing authorisation was granted for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine on 24 June 2021 following an EC Reliance Procedure (PLGB 17901/0355). Further information is available on the MHRA website and the EMA website, links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

 

Kind Regards

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Telephone 020 3080 6000

gov.uk/mhra Stay connected

For information on how the Agency uses your personal data and your data protection rights, please see our three centres’ Privacy Notices: MHRA, CPRD and NIBSC.


136 Response (2)

Subject: C J 136: CSC 49437 Covid 19 Adverse reactions to experimental gene-editing treatments – Quality of information
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:29:43 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

We intend to publish all suspected reactions reported in association with available COVID-19 vaccines in an interactive format as iDAPs, along with our ADR summary that is published each week. The use of iDAPs will enable users to view the data by categories of their choice such as age, sex and seriousness of reports. Users will also be able to download the data tables in CSV format. We would be happy to provide you with a link to this when it is published.

Individual assessments will not be disclosed and we would advise you to consult the weekly summary for our analysis of reports received each week, which can be found here: Coronavirus vaccine – weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Regarding the following statement:

“mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines], produced by Pfizer / BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Janssen have been authorised for temporary emergency use under Regulation 174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and therefore remain unlicensed. They have not been approved [and licensed] for use in the human population as Phase 3 trials are due to be completed in 2023.”

Please note that a marketing authorisation was granted for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (Comirnaty) following a European Commission (EC) decision on 21 December 2020 (PLGB 53632/0002). Further information is available on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website, a link to this is provided below:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty

Please also note that a marketing authorisation was granted for the Moderna vaccine on 31 March 2021 following an EC Reliance Procedure (PLGB 53720/0002). Further information is available on the MHRA website and the EMA website, links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/covid-19-vaccine-moderna

A marketing authorisation has been granted for the Janssen Covid-19 vaccine on 28 May 2021. Further information is available via the below link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-janssen

In addition, a marketing authorisation was granted for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine on 24 June 2021 following an EC Reliance Procedure (PLGB 17901/0355). Further information is available on the MHRA website and the EMA website, links to these are provided below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

The main efficacy and safety results for the Phase I, II and III trials for all authorised vaccines have been submitted to MHRA, sufficient that these vaccines can be authorised for use in the patient populations stated in the Information for Healthcare Professionals/Summary of Product Characteristics for each vaccine. These studies are currently ongoing to follow-up vaccine recipients to collect additional safety data, in the same way that all clinical trials for new medicines follow up their study subjects after the main results of the study have been reported. Other studies that are currently in progress are either for cohorts/subpopulations of recipients or to investigate different regimens (such as giving different brands of vaccine for the first and second doses).

Kind Regards

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 020 3080 6000


137 Enquiry

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

Date: 11  05  2021

Dear First Minister

Subject: Validity of Covid 19  RT-PCR test – external peer review by 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists.

I refer to my letter dated 8 April addressed to your Senior Manager, Dr Miranda Morton [Test, Trace Protect Programme], as set out below, enclosing external peer review of RT-PCR test. I requested, under the FOI Act, confirmation of the date the review findings were drawn to your attention to inform political decisions regarding economic lockdown in Wales.

I am grateful to your Business Manager, Jeanette Warren, for responding to my request in a letter dated 11 May 2021, as attached. [LINK] [LINK]
 
I note, from the reply, that the external peer review, dated 27 November 2020, into the Covid 19 RT-PCR test, undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists was drawn to the attention of your “Technical Advisory Cell” [TAC] on 23 April 2021. I am disappointed to learn that TAC did not consider it appropriate to draw the findings to your attention, as First Minister, to inform economic lockdown strategy / policy in Wales, particularly in view of the ongoing lawsuits in the U K and other countries challenging, inter alia, the validity of the RT-PCR test as a diagnostic tool for Covid 19 [purportedly an infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus]. The current position with regard to ongoing litigation in UK and other countries is set out in Annex 01 below for your information and for file record purpose.

I would be grateful if you could now take into consideration the important information now provided [in attached documentation and Annex 01 below] regarding the validity of the RT-PCR test. As you are aware, test results underpin economic lockdown strategy / policy in Wales.

I look forward to your observations when you have had an opportunity to be briefed on this matter by your scientific and medical advisors. Thank you.    

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


Annex 01
Chronology of Covid 19 related lawsuits in UK and around the world.

11 May 2021

The legal team representing America’s Frontline Doctors is filing cases in court to prevent the Food and Drugs Administration [FDA] from issuing an “Emergency Use Authorisation” [EUA] for the experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatment for 12 to 15 year old children. The FDA proposes to expand the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to enrol adolescents, ages 12-15. Scientists around the world have noted extreme danger and believe the danger is even greater for young people due to their stronger immune systems. There are now over 4,100 deaths associated with the experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatments. By comparison, an experimental vaccine rollout in the USA in 1976 was permanently halted after just 25 deaths. Critical testing and clinical trials were bypassed. The average length of time required to approve a vaccine is 10-15 years but now, barely six months in, the FDA is poised to test it on children and then request universal approval. Independent scientists from all over the world are protesting, but they are being ignored. The lives of America’s youth are now at grave risk over an experimental injection for a virus which is 99.97% survivable. Children are not affected by Covid, so why should they receive an experimental gene-editing treatment.

Parents, teachers, doctors, and all others who can attest to harm, injury, or death from vaccines already administered will provide the evidence to save children from being injected with these dangerous and unnecessary biological agents.

Further updates will be provided as litigation now progresses.

 

20 April 2021

In a 27-page submission, a ‘Request for Investigation’ of the UK Government and its advisers, for genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code, was issued to the International Criminal Court [ICC] at the Hague. Compelling reasons as to why the UK Government and its advisers are guilty of the above charges was submitted. The ICC will review the ‘Request for Investigation’ and assess whether they believe there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into a ‘Situation’, pursuant to the criteria established by the Rome Statute.

The ICC does not provide a timeline regarding acceptance, nor is there any guarantee that they will ultimately accept the ‘Request for Investigation’ due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are limited in their capacity to conduct investigations.

 

19 April 2021

Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] alleging pandemic fraud is set to be listed for hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court. Effectively, this means that the case files contained enough prima facie evidence of pandemic fraud for Westminster to transfer the case to Bromley, for the purposes of performing the final legal checks [the initial checks having been done by the south London court’s legal department] and listing the first hearing of the case at the Kent court.

 

19 March 2021

Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] papers alleging pandemic fraud were laid electronically at a south London Magistrates Court, against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson. The Court will receive a 1,200 page bundle of evidence, which includes expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective. In addition to the charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, in material breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, the action [instigated by Michael O’Bernecia] is informally applying for a declaration, under the inherent powers of the court, which states that autopsies are to be carried out for all alleged Covid deaths, which will be held as evidence in the forthcoming trial, on the ground that expert witness testimony is available of the falsification of death certificates, as per UK Government policy. Additionally, a request is being made for a moratorium on the UK influenza and Covid ‘vaccinations’ programmes to be declared for period of at least 90 days, in order to definitively establish whether it is Covid 19 or ‘vaccines’ that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, as per the leaked WHO approved ‘vaccine’ safety study which is being included as evidence. The court previously requested more prima facie evidence when the last application in late 2020 was made, seeking the arrest of Matt Hancock for fraud by non-disclosure over the declassification of Covid 19 by the ACDP.

 

11 January 2021

Legal proceedings under Class Proceedings Act 1992 initiated on behalf of plaintiffs at Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging, inter alia, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Court reference CV-21-000085478-00CP. Defendants include: Pope Francis, The Holy See, The State of the Vatican, The Society of Jesus, H M Queen Elizabeth II, The Order of the Garter, The House of Windsor, Global Vaccine Alliance [GAVI], the United Nations World Health Organisation, Public Health Organisation of Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Dr Theresa Tam, Premier Doug Ford, Christine Elliot, Mayor Jim Watson, Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario. The action alleges, inter alia, that the defendants are vicariously liable for knowingly and wilfully advancing, promoting, adopting and manufacturing Covid 19 protocols, task force response, and medical protocols which violate terms and provisions of the “Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act”. Under the action the plaintiffs and Class Members seek damages for breach of domestic torts such as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, malfeasance in office, unlawful confinement, and conspiracy. The plaintiffs and Class Members also seek damages for breaches of customary international law, prohibitions against crimes against humanity, cruel, inhuman or degrading behaviour, and torts of genocide and apartheid.

 

15 December 2020

“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

 

25 November 2020

First lawsuit in a multi-lawsuit strategy filed in Germany. Fact checkers are being sued regarding validity of RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus. Dr Reimer Fuellmich working with the “Coronavirus Investigation Committee” in Germany. Cases also filed in U S Courts as they have better separation between the legislature and the legal system than courts in Europe.

 

11 November 2020

An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.

 

2 September 2020

191- page lawsuit filed by “Rocco Galati” against multiple levels of the Canadian Government regarding their management of the alleged pandemic. The following are named in his lawsuit: Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Doug Ford, John Tory, and a host of other federal, provincial and municipal government officials. The lawsuit seeks several official declarations from the courts that pandemic measures are neither scientific or medically-based, that they are extreme, irrational, and unwarranted and that they breach multiple sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He is also seeking damages from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC].


137 Response

Awaiting reply


138 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: 20  05  2021

Dear Dr June Raine

Subject:   Covid 19 Adverse drug reactions to experimental mRNA / DNA based gene-editing treatments

I refer to the above subject and set out below under the respective sub-headings the latest information available from UK and European monitoring system.

United Kingdom MHRA “yellow card” monitoring system: data to 6 May 2021
Total adverse reactions 826,350 with 1,143 fatal outcomes, itemised as follows
AstraZeneca 662,176 adverse reactions, 756 deaths
Pfizer 159,219 adverse reactions, 370 deaths
Moderna 3,056 adverse reactions, 2 deaths
Unspecified 1,899 adverse reactions, 15 deaths.

EudraVigilance European database: data to 8 May 2021
405,259 injuries, 10,570 deaths: following receipt of Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Janssen mRNA / DNA based experimental gene-editing treatments.

As you are aware, none of these experimental mRNA / DNA based gene-editing treatments have been approved for use in the human population. They have been granted temporary emergency authorisation pursuant to S.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

In view of the alarming number of injuries and deaths recorded I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

  1. A brief explanation of the role of MHRA [as medical regulator] in investigating the injuries and deaths now recorded, and
  2. Confirmation whether autopsies have been undertaken following post-treatment deaths

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

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


138 Response

Subject: RE: CSC 51073 C J 138: Covid 19 Adverse drug reactions to experimental mRNA / DNA based gene-editing treatments
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:30:15 +0000
From: Yellow Card Mailbox <yellow.card@mhra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

   GENQ-00147263

Thank you for your email to the MHRA Customer Services mailbox dated 20th May 2021 in which you requested:

  1. A brief explanation of the role of the MHRA as a medical regulator in investigating the recorded injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.
  2. Confirmation of whether autopsies have been undertaken following deaths after COVID-19 vaccination.

To address your first request, I will provide you with some background about the MHRA and the work that we do. The MHRA is a government agency that continuously monitors the safety of medicines and vaccines through a variety of pharmacovigilance processes, including the Yellow Card scheme. The MHRA, together with independent expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), is responsible for ensuring that the overall balance of benefits (in terms of effectiveness) and risks of medicines and vaccines is positive at the time of licensing and remains so thereafter.

As part of our post-marketing signal detection processes, all adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports received via the Yellow Card scheme are assigned a unique 8-number identifier and are individually assessed, with the cumulative information being reviewed at regular intervals. The MHRA hold weekly signal meetings in which drug/vaccine-reaction combinations which meet defined criteria are assessed by a group of scientists, physicians and pharmacists to determine if risk-minimisation measures need to be implemented. This includes potentially unrecognised drug interactions. Any emerging evidence relating to possible risks associated with medicines and vaccines would be carefully reviewed and, if appropriate, regulatory action would be taken if any serious risks were confirmed.

Regarding your second request, we are unable to comment on whether autopsies have been undertaken following deaths after COVID-19 vaccination as the MHRA is committed to maintaining patient and reporter confidentiality. The MHRA routinely follows up on all fatal cases which are reported through the Yellow Card scheme, and if a post-mortem is not provided then this request for the information is made where appropriate. It is the role of the pathologist to determine the cause of death; this does not fall within the MHRA’s remit. As with any serious suspected ADR, reports with a fatal outcome are fully evaluated by the MHRA, including an assessment of post-mortem details if available, to consider whether the vaccine (or medicine) may have caused the event, or whether the event and fatal outcome were likely to be purely coincidental and due to underlying illness.

You may find it useful to know that the MHRA publishes a weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting for COVID-19 vaccines, which can be found on this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting. In this publication, you will find a breakdown of the age and sex of these patients, as well as a section discussing events with a fatal outcome.

Support like yours is invaluable in helping us to continuously monitor the safety of medicines and published information about known side-effects, which allows patients and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions. I would like to thank you for raising your query with us. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Phillips

Associate Signal Assessor

Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines

 cc: Bhavini Patel, Pharmacovigilance Information Coordinator


139 Enquiry

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

Date: 21  05  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: C J 139:  “Cov-Boost Study” to evaluate Covid 19 vaccine boosters

I refer to the above subject. Full details of the study are available at the following link:

https://covboost.org/

I note that the 8 experimental vaccines listed below are to be used in the UK study.

ChadOx1 nCoV-19 [also known as AZD1222]
Pfizer BioNTech BNT 16262
Moderna mRNA-1273
Novavax NVX-CoV2373
Valneva VLA 2001
Curevac CVnCoV
Janssen Ad26.CoV2.S
Meningococcal ACWY vaccine

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please provide details of the authorisation provided by MHRA [as medical regulator] for the use of the 8 experimental vaccines in the “Cov Boost Study” in the UK.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


139 Response

Dear Wynne Jones

FOI 21/614

 Thank you for your enquiry dated 21st May 2021 which has been considered under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

Regarding ‘Subject: “Cov-Boost Study” to evaluate Covid 19 vaccine boosters’ you asked for the following:

  • details of the authorisation provided by MHRA [as medical regulator] for the use of the 8 experimental vaccines in the “Cov Boost Study” in the UK.

The following clinical trial application was approved by the MHRA on the 17th May 2021;

‘A randomised, phase II UK multi-centre study to determine reactogenicity and immunogenicity of booster vaccination against ancestral and novel variants of SARS-CoV-2 (COV-BOOST).’

The formal letter of authorisation is appended to this letter as requested [LINK].

We now consider this request closed.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review.

Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date you receive this response and addressed to: info@mhra.gov.uk .

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. Please note, due to the ongoing Covid-19 situation, we are not able to accept delivery of any documents or

correspondence by post or courier to any of our offices.

If you were to remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you would have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please bear in mind that the Information

Commissioner will not normally review our handling of your request unless you have first contacted us to conduct an internal review. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU


140 Enquiry

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

Date: 22  05  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Covid 19 – Sewage monitoring to provide early warning of coronavirus outbreak

I refer to the above subject and to a press release dated 23 October 2020 issued jointly by DHSC and DEFRA. A copy is attached hereto [LINK]. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004.

I would be pleased to receive technical details of the new test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus and variants in wastewater discharged from sewage treatment works in England.

If the technical / scientific paper is available on your website a link to the relevant document will suffice. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


140 Response

Awaiting reply


141 Enquiry

Open letter to:

Director General and Editor in Chief
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA

Date: 24  05  2021

Dear Tim Davie

Subject: Journalistic Integrity at the BBC

The question of journalistic integrity at the BBC is currently in sharp focus following publication of the report by retired supreme court judge Lord Dyson. While you, in your role as “Director General and Editor in Chief“, reflect on Lord Dyson’s findings, I would be grateful if you could consider commissioning another investigation to establish whether factually correct information has been presented to the general public by the BBC during the coronavirus crisis. Areas of particular concern are listed below.

  1. The failure to report, in daily news bulletins, the number of severe adverse reactions [including death] following roll-out of the experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccines] for Covid 19. The latest information published on UK Government website [administered by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency {MHRA}] and European Medical Regulator is set out in Annex 01 below. This information is readily available to your Health Editor Hugh Pym and Medical Editor Fergus Walsh. Factually correct information would enable the public to take informed decisions.
  2. The failure to report in news bulletins the current position in respect of ongoing litigation regarding the management of the coronavirus crisis in the UK and around the world. The current position with regard to Coronavirus-related global lawsuits is set out in Annex 02 below. 
  3. The funding received by the BBC from the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” [B M G F] believed to be in the region of £53 million. The B M G F has substantial investments in pharmaceutical companies developing and delivering experimental gene-editing treatments for Covid 19. Any investigation should aim to establish whether there is a conflict of interest that could impact on the BBC’s impartiality in presenting information to the public.

I look forward to your observations at your earliest convenience and confirmation whether you consider an internal or external investigation is now necessary to establish whether factually correct information has been provided to the general public in BBC news bulletins during the Coronavirus crisis. Thank you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   UK Parliament Public Accounts Committee
cc   National Audit Office
cc   Rt Hon Steven Baker MP – Steering Committee – Covid Recovery Group

Annex 01

United Kingdom MHRA “yellow card” monitoring system: data to 6 May 2021
Total adverse reactions 826,350 with 1,143 fatal outcomes, itemised as follows
AstraZeneca 662,176 adverse reactions, 756 deaths
Pfizer 159,219 adverse reactions, 370 deaths
Moderna 3,056 adverse reactions, 2 deaths
Unspecified 1,899 adverse reactions, 15 deaths.

EudraVigilance European database: data to 8 May 2021
405,259 injuries, 10,570 deaths: following receipt of Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Janssen mRNA / DNA based experimental gene-editing treatments.

Annex 02

Chronology of Coronavirus-related global lawsuits
19 May 2021

Martin Ackermann, head of the Swiss Covid 19 Science Task Force [the equivalent of SAGE in the UK] indicted by five organisations and seven private individuals for criminal attempted and actual intimidation of the people contrary to the constitution. Criminal charges include:

  • repeated bogus prognosis
  • systematic manipulation of intensive-care bed data
  • false pronouncements on hospitalisation and death rates
  • constantly changing measures as best suits the narrative.  

15 May 2021
“Statement of Case” alleging pandemic fraud against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson was filed electronically at Westminster Magistrates Court on 19 March 2021, along with a covering letter informing the court that the substantive evidence bundle would be sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery the following week, including hard copies of the “Statement of Case” and the covering letter. On 26 March 2021 the three case files were received and signed for by the court. The judge purported to dismiss the case on the emphatically unsustainable ground that not enough prima facie evidence had been presented for the case to proceed. When it became clear that the judge’s decision was based on the 126 page “Statement of Case” and that he had not had sight of the supporting evidence of 800 pages which included 11 expert witness statements in support of the serious allegations made, the judge indicated that he would be reconsidering the case upon all the evidence adduced at the end of next week, with his final decision to follow shortly afterwards. The judge’s second decision is awaited.
 
11 May 2021
The legal team representing America’s Frontline Doctors is filing cases in court to prevent the Food and Drugs Administration [FDA] from issuing an “Emergency Use Authorisation” [EUA] for the experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatment for 12 to 15 year old children. The FDA proposes to expand the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to enrol adolescents, ages 12-15. Scientists around the world have noted extreme danger and believe the danger is even greater for young people due to their stronger immune systems. There are now over 4,100 deaths associated with the experimental Covid 19 gene-editing treatments. By comparison, an experimental vaccine rollout in the USA in 1976 was permanently halted after just 25 deaths. Critical testing and clinical trials were bypassed. The average length of time required to approve a vaccine is 10-15 years but now, barely six months in, the FDA is poised to test it on children and then request universal approval. Independent scientists from all over the world are protesting, but they are being ignored. The lives of America’s youth are now at grave risk over an experimental injection for a virus which is 99.97% survivable. Children are not affected by Covid, so why should they receive an experimental gene-editing treatment. Parents, teachers, doctors, and all others who can attest to harm, injury, or death from vaccines already administered will provide the evidence to save children from being injected with these dangerous and unnecessary biological agents. Further updates will be provided as litigation now progresses.
 
20 April 2021
In a 27-page submission, a ‘Request for Investigation’ of the UK Government and its advisers, for genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code, was issued to the International Criminal Court [ICC] at the Hague. Compelling reasons as to why the UK Government and its advisers are guilty of the above charges was submitted. The ICC will review the ‘Request for Investigation’ and assess whether they believe there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into a ‘Situation’, pursuant to the criteria established by the Rome Statute. The ICC does not provide a timeline regarding acceptance, nor is there any guarantee that they will ultimately accept the ‘Request for Investigation’ due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are limited in their capacity to conduct investigations.
 
19 April 2021
Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] alleging pandemic fraud is set to be listed for hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court. Effectively, this means that the case files contained enough prima facie evidence of pandemic fraud for Westminster to transfer the case to Bromley, for the purposes of performing the final legal checks [the initial checks having been done by the south London court’s legal department] and listing the first hearing of the case at the Kent court.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3] Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
19 March 2021
Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] papers alleging pandemic fraud were laid electronically at a south London Magistrates Court, against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson. The Court will receive a 1,200 page bundle of evidence, which includes expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective. In addition to the charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, in material breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, the action [instigated by Michael O’Bernecia] is informally applying for a declaration, under the inherent powers of the court, which states that autopsies are to be carried out for all alleged Covid deaths, which will be held as evidence in the forthcoming trial, on the ground that expert witness testimony is available of the falsification of death certificates, as per UK Government policy. Additionally, a request is being made for a moratorium on the UK influenza and Covid ‘vaccinations’ programmes to be declared for period of at least 90 days, in order to definitively establish whether it is Covid 19 or ‘vaccines’ that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, as per the leaked WHO approved ‘vaccine’ safety study which is being included as evidence. The court previously requested more prima facie evidence when the last application in late 2020 was made, seeking the arrest of Matt Hancock for fraud by non-disclosure over the declassification of Covid 19 by the ACDP.
 
11 January 2021
Legal proceedings under Class Proceedings Act 1992 initiated on behalf of plaintiffs at Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging, inter alia, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Court reference CV-21-000085478-00CP. Defendants include: Pope Francis, The Holy See, The State of the Vatican, The Society of Jesus, H M Queen Elizabeth II, The Order of the Garter, The House of Windsor, Global Vaccine Alliance [GAVI], the United Nations World Health Organisation, Public Health Organisation of Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Dr Theresa Tam, Premier Doug Ford, Christine Elliot, Mayor Jim Watson, Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario. The action alleges, inter alia, that the defendants are vicariously liable for knowingly and wilfully advancing, promoting, adopting and manufacturing Covid 19 protocols, task force response, and medical protocols which violate terms and provisions of the “Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act“. Under the action the plaintiffs and Class Members seek damages for breach of domestic torts such as negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, malfeasance in office, unlawful confinement, and conspiracy. The plaintiffs and Class Members also seek damages for breaches of customary international law, prohibitions against crimes against humanity, cruel, inhuman or degrading behaviour, and torts of genocide and apartheid.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
25 November 2020
First lawsuit in a multi-lawsuit strategy filed in Germany. Fact checkers are being sued regarding validity of RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus. Dr Reimer Fuellmich working with the “Coronavirus Investigation Committee” in Germany. Cases also filed in U S Courts as they have better separation between the legislature and the legal system than courts in Europe.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
 
2 September 2020
191- page lawsuit filed by “Rocco Galati” against multiple levels of the Canadian Government regarding their management of the alleged pandemic. The following are named in his lawsuit: Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Doug Ford, John Tory, and a host of other federal, provincial and municipal government officials. The lawsuit seeks several official declarations from the courts that pandemic measures are neither scientific or medically-based, that they are extreme, irrational, and unwarranted and that they breach multiple sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He is also seeking damages from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC].


141 Response

Awaiting reply


142 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Public Health England
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8OG

Date: 25  05  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: National Immunisation Management System [N I M S]

I attach preprint report [not certified by peer review] prepared by Public Health England [P H E]. I note reference to a National Vaccination Register known as the National Immunisation Management System [N I M S] with the following data recorded.

NHS Number
Date of Birth
Surname
First Name
Postcode
Age [in 10 year groups]
Sex
Index of multiple deprivation [quintiles]
Ethnicity
Care Home Status
Clinically extremely vulnerable
History of infection prior to start of vaccination programme

In view of the “personal data” recorded in N I M S could you please arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000 / E I R 2004.

  1. Database design: a list of the total data fields [in addition to the 12 listed above].
  2. A copy of the Data Protection Impact Assessment [D P I A] undertaken by P H E pursuant to S.64 Data Protection Act 2018.
  3. Confirmation whether the data stored in N I M S, as a national database, is restricted to England or whether it also includes data for the devolved administrations: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

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

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


142 Response (1)

Subject: OFFICIAL: RE: Case Reference 372 – C J 142: National Immunisation Management System [N I M S]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:31:50 +0000
From: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>

OFFICIAL

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email of 25 May 2021 to Public Health England (PHE) requesting information about the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS).

PHE can confirm the subject matter in question does not fall within PHE’s remit. We, therefore, confirm PHE does not hold the information you have requested. 

Under Section 16 of the FOI Act, public authorities have a duty to provide advice and assistance. Accordingly, you may wish to contact the NHS England (NHSE) and NHS Digital (NHSD) who commissioned and is the data controller for NIMS.

For your convenience, I have located the following NHSE and NHSD information that you may find of assistance:

https://digital.nhs.uk/coronavirus/nhs-digital-coronavirus-programme-updates/programme-updates-15-december-2020/support-delivery-of-vaccinations

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/data-protection-impact-assessment-national-flu-and-covid-19-vaccination-programme-including-the-national-immunisation-management-service-nims/

You can submit a FOI to the NHSE at: england.contactus@nhs.net

You can submit a FOI to the NHSD at: enquiries@nhsdigital.nhs.uk

Yours sincerely

FOI Team

Public Accountability Unit

Public Health England

foi@phe.gov.uk

www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk


142 Response (2)

Subject: Freedom of Information Request (Our Ref: FOI- 2107-1504644) NHSE:0426621
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:50:37 +0000
From: FOITEAMCRMMAILBOX (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT – X24) <england.foicrm@nhs.net>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,  

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 09 July 2021.

Your exact request was:

“In view of the “personal data” recorded in N I M S could you please arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000 / E I R 2004.

1. Database design: a list of the total data fields [in addition to the 12 listed in Annex 01 below].
2. Confirmation whether the data stored in N I M S, as a national database, is restricted to England or whether it also includes data for the devolved administrations: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Annex 01
NHS Number
Date of Birth
Surname
First Name
Postcode
Age [in 10 year groups]
Sex
Index of multiple deprivation [quintiles]
Ethnicity
Care Home Status
Clinically extremely vulnerable
History of infection prior to start of vaccination programme”

NHS England holds information in relation to your request.

The National Immunisation Management System (NIMS), operated by NHS England and shared with NHS Digital as an independent controller. It was put in place to support the management of the 2020/21 flu and Covid-19 vaccination programme for all patients registered in England.
 
The additional data fields captured are highlighted below, but thought it useful to also include the levels of geography to ensure the vaccine distribution is targeted:
 

  • 1st and 2nd Dose
  • Age bands with % uptake split by NHS Geographies (NHS Region of residence, Integrated Care Systems (ICSs)/Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) of residence and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of residence)
  • Gender by Age band and NHS Region with % uptake
  • Ethnicity split by NHS Geographies (NHS Region of residence and Integrated Care Systems (ICSs)/Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) of residence)
  • Age bands split by administrative geographies (Middle-Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA), Lower Tier Local Authority (LTLA) and Parliamentary Constituency of residence)
  • Residents and staff in Older adult care homes by NHS Region and Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA) with % uptake
  • Residents and staff in Younger adult care homes by NHS Region and UTLA with % uptake
  • Social care staff of Domiciliary care providers and non-CQC registered providers by UTLA with % uptake
  • NHS Trust Healthcare workers (from the Electronic Staff Record) by NHS Region
  • Clinically Extremely Vulnerable cohort (CEV) by NHS Region with % uptake
  • Individuals identified as At Risk or a Carer (under 65yrs) by NHS Region with % uptake

NHS England holds the Data Protection Impact Assessment for the NIMS.

However, as the information held is in the public domain, we will under Section 21 of the FOI Act (information accessible to the applicant by other means) refer you to the published source here and further details here.

We hope this information is helpful. However, if you are dissatisfied, you have the right to ask for an internal review. This should be requested in writing within two months of the date of this letter. Your correspondence should be labelled “Internal Review” and should outline your concerns and/or the area(s) you would like the review to consider. Internal Review requests should be sent to:

NHS England
PO Box 16738
REDDITCH
B97 9PT

Email: england.contactus@nhs.net

Please quote the reference number FOI- 2107-1504644 in any future communications.

Copyright: – NHS England operates under the terms of the open government licence. Please see the NHS England Terms and conditions on the following link http://www.england.nhs.uk/terms-and-conditions/

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can be contacted at the following weblink:
 
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Please note there is no charge for making an appeal.

Please be aware that in line with the Information Commissioner’s directive on the disclosure of information under the FOI Act, your request will be anonymised and published on our website as part of our disclosure log.

Please do not reply to this email. This message has been sent from a central mailbox. To communicate with NHS England regarding Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, enquiries or complaints we ask these are sent directly to NHS England’s customer contact centre. This is to ensure all communications are progressed correctly. Their postal address, telephone number and email details are as follows: PO Box 16738, Redditch, B97 9PT; 0300 3 11 22 33, england.contactus@nhs.net.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information
Communications Team
Office of the Chairs, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer

NHS England
PO Box 16738
REDDITCH
B97 9PT

Tel: 0300 311 22 33
Email: england.contactus@nhs.net


143 Enquiry

Director General and Editor in Chief
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA

Date: 30  05  2021

Dear Tim Davie

Subject: C J  143:  Tragic death following vaccination

I was saddened to learn, in media reports, of the tragic death of one of your presenters – Lisa Shaw – a week following receipt of the experimental AstraZeneca gene-editing treatment [vaccine]. I understand the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA] has a policy of fully evaluating adverse reports with a fatal outcome, and that their detailed and rigorous review into reports of blood clots occurring with thrombocytopenia is ongoing.

In addition to the external review by MHRA, does the BBC, under your duty of care to your employees, have any plans to also investigate sudden deaths of this nature?

The current position with regard to adverse reactions [including death] post-vaccination in the UK is set out below.

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]
Adverse Reaction Overview
Data to 19 May 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system

AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 676,083 – total fatalities 806
Moderna – total adverse reactions 5,567 – total fatalities 4
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 175,673 – total fatalities 382
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 2,158 – total fatalities 21
Total – total adverse reactions 859,481 – total fatalities 1,213

 
I would be grateful if you could advise me whether the BBC have any plans to present this information in your daily news bulletins to inform the general public. It would enable informed decisions to be taken.  

I look forward to receiving clarification on BBC policy on this subject at your earliest convenience. Thank you.   

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc    Dr June Raine Chief Executive MHRA


143 Response

Subject: BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-6815383-M4W6V4
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:10:07 +0000
From: BBC Complaints <bbc_complaints_website@contact.bbc.co.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Mr Jones


Reference CAS-6815383-M4W6V4
Your emails to the Director General have again been passed to us here in Audience Services.
We acknowledge receipt of your open letter, dated 24 May, sent via email to the Director General.
We also note a further email from May 30, entitled CJ 143, and on 21 June regarding an automated message received from the BBC Complaints Team.Your general concerns about the impartiality and independence of BBC News regarding Coronavirus are now officially recorded on our complaints system. We will touch on the specific points you have cited to date, but realise this forms a pattern of concerns regarding the veracity of our news coverage, range of stories included in bulletins, and our editorial independence.You were concerned about the accuracy of our reporting regarding coronavirus and the following:1. adverse reactions to vaccines
2. litigation against the makers
3. funding from the BMGF and our editorial independence
4. the sudden passing of Lisa Shaw, and whether the BBC would investigate sudden deaths
5. whether MHRA Yellow Card stats for covid vaccines would be included in regular BBC News bulletins1.
In our reporting, we’ve informed the audience with due weight and accuracy about the potential for side-effects. We keep this in perspective, with expert input from professionals who bear in mind the risks associated with Covid-19 and the relative risks for some vaccine recipients. A number of examples remain available online here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56674796  Vaccines, rare blood clots – what you need to know
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56375307  My vaccine side effects and what they mean
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55302595  Is the Astra Zeneca vaccine safe?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57260463  The race to treat post vaccine clots
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-57282498 I was one of the first to get a post-vaccine blood clot. (There was also a version of this piece on BBC News at Six and Ten on 28th May).As explained on the gov.uk website:
“The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness. It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccinations as many factors can influence ADR reporting. Vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19 and have already saved thousands of lives.”2.
We report on significant developments when they happen. We’ve noted your reference to international lawsuits, but editorial judgements are made in context – it’s not clear at present if any of those referred to have reached a legally significant stage. We monitor all developments related to the treatment of coronavirus and keep providers to account, reflecting any consensus and opposing minority views when appropriate.3.
We have already addressed your previous query about the funding of Media Action Group, and BMGF – we offered you stage 2 of our process in CAS-6081489-B7D5D6-1 on December 15. As mentioned at the time, we won’t respond to any further comments on that matter.4.
As you noted in your letter, there is already an investigation into the cause of death with our colleague, Lisa Shaw. We have reported on that here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57267169 and note the family’s request for privacy at this time.5.
The daily figures reported on BBC News bulletins on cases, vaccinations and deaths within 28 days of a positive Covid test are published each day on the gov.uk website.We note your concern about the level of coverage of the weekly Yellow Card scheme reports but as mentioned previously:“The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination… It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccinations as many factors can influence ADR reporting.”We report on the relative risks from the vaccines with due weight, bearing in mind the risk of not being vaccinated and we cover any relevant briefings and safety updates from the MHRA, for example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57358446 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517 We stand by the accuracy and integrity of our reporting on all aspects of Covid-19. The editorial independence of BBC News is not affected by any external influences and we’ll continue to reflect concerns about the virus and its treatment, where editorially relevant, and with due weight.Finally, it’s worth mentioning that if you wish to make a complaint about editorial or policy matters, our complaints service is the appropriate channel to use. Continued emails of this nature directed to staff may not result in a reply or acknowledgement, as we already have a specific service for this purpose.It’s important that each complaint is limited to one issue per complaint, which can be submitted concisely and via the webform, or by post if preferred.If you wish to pursue a particular matter further, it’s important that you familiarise yourself with the terms of our service and the options available to you. They are available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/sites/default/files/2020-06/BBC_Complaints_Framework.pdf 
Best wishes,
BBC Complaints Team 
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

144 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 31  05  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Doctors for Covid Ethics – Paper dated 20 April 2021

I attach paper dated 20 April 2021 [LINK] published by “Doctors for Covid Ethics“. I would be grateful if you could note the content and circulate the paper to Cabinet Members to inform U K Government vaccination strategy and policy.

As justification for my request, I draw your attention to the latest information published by U K Government’s “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [M H R A] regarding post-vaccination adverse reactions [including deaths]. An overview summary is set out below.

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]
Adverse Reaction Overview
Data to 19 May 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system

AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 676,083 – total fatalities 806
Moderna – total adverse reactions 5,567 – total fatalities 4
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 175,673 – total fatalities 382
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 2,158 – total fatalities 21
Total – total adverse reactions 859,481 – total fatalities 1,213

Similar alarming data / information is published by the “European Medicines Agency” [E M A]. An overview summary is set out below.

EudraVigilance European Database: data to 8 May 2021
405,259 injuries, 10,570 deaths: following receipt of Moderna, Pfizer / AstraZeneca and Janssen mRNA / DNA based experimental gene-editing treatments
 

I now refer to the forthcoming judge-led independent public inquiry into the management of the coronavirus crisis announced by the Prime Minister. Please note, evidence to be presented to the inquiry will confirm that the attached paper from “Doctors for Covid Ethics” was presented to Cabinet Office for circulation to Cabinet Members on 31 May 2021.

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter [and attachment] and provide a target date for your substantive reply. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   UK Parliament Public Accounts Committee
cc   National Audit Office
cc   Rt Hon Steven Baker MP – Steering Committee – Covid Recovery Group


144 Response

Awaiting reply


145 Enquiry

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

Date: 01  06  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject:   Covid 19 Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine

I understand the Covid 19 Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine has now been authorised for temporary emergency use in the UK. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a link to the Public Assessment Report [PAR] for this vaccine. I have not been able to locate the document on your website. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones.

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


145 Response

Subject: CSC 52455 C J 145: Covid 19 Johnson & Johnson single dose vaccine
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:58:18 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

The Janssen single-dose vaccine was authorised on 28 May 2021 (PLGB 00242/0742). Further information is available via the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-janssen

The MHRA PAR is currently being prepared however the EMA PAR for the Janssen vaccine can be found here: COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen | European Medicines Agency (europa.eu)

Kind regards,

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000

gov.uk/mhra

Stay connected

For information on how the Agency uses your personal data and your data protection rights, please see our three centres’ Privacy Notices: MHRA, CPRD and NIBSC.


146 Enquiry

Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS
Minister for Health and Social Services
Welsh Government
5th Floor
Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 02  06  2021

Dear Minister

Subject: Covid 19 Certificate of Vaccination [Vaccine Passport] – Wales

I refer to the above subject and attach article published in Tivy-side Advertiser 2 June [LINK]. I note that Welsh Government are now in a position to provide Certificate of Vaccination [also known as Vaccine Passport] for those that:

  1. have received two doses of vaccine
  2. need to urgently travel to a country that requires vaccine certificate
  3. are not able to quarantine or provide test results to meet a country’s entry requirements.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with details of the new statute / regulations regarding the vaccination certification process. Is this new secondary legislation introduced by the devolved administration in Wales, or is this new legislation introduced by U K Government under emergency powers?

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

Wynne Jones.

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


146 Response

Awaiting reply


147 Enquiry

Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS
Minister for Health and Social Services
Welsh Government
5th Floor
Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 02  06  2021

Dear Minister

Subject:    Covid 19 – Additional £32 Million allocated in Wales for contact tracing based on RT-PCR test results – Request for review

I refer to the above subject and attach details provided in media report [LINK]. I am surprised to learn that an additional £32 million of public funding has been allocated for contact tracing in Wales based on RT-PCR test results, given the information previously provided to Welsh Government regarding the validity of the RT-PCR test. I would therefore be grateful if you could arrange to undertake an internal review of the decision in order to establish whether allocating an addition sum of £32 million amounts to misuse of public funding. I offer the following as evidence in support of my request for a review.

  1. External peer-review into the RT-PCR test by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists [as attached – LINK]. 10 major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded, for the reasons stated, that the test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. 
  2. Court judgements regarding the validity of the RT-PCR test, as set out in Annex 01 below.

I look forward to the response to my request for internal review given the compelling evidence regarding the fraudulent nature of the RT-PCR test and court judgement in the Portuguese appeal court and Vienna Administrative court.

I would also welcome your observations on whether you consider that an external assessment by “Audit Wales” is now appropriate to establish whether committing an additional £32 million of public funding in Wales represents value for money or, alternatively, represents a miss-use of public funding and possibly misfeasance or malfeasance by by officials and / or ministers in public office.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
Audit Wales

Annex 01

Chronology of lawsuits regarding validity of RT-PCR test

24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]           Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


147 Response

Awaiting reply


148 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Information Service
National Health Service [NHS] Wales

Date: 06  06  2021

Dear FOI Team Members

Subject:  Covid 19 vaccination programme – Wales. Request for information. – Spike protein mRNA vaccine.

I refer to the above subject. Alarming information has now been provided by Dr Byram Bridle, supported by peer-reviewed scientific publications. Dr Bridle has serious concerns and asserts that the spike protein generated by the mRNA / DNA based experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccines] for Covid 19 can circulate in the blood to internal organs including the spleen, bone marrow, ovaries and other organs and can penetrate the blood / brain barrier resulting in neurological damage. Dr Bridle further asserts that there are recorded reports of suckling babies, receiving breast milk from their mothers [who have received the experimental mRNA / DNA based treatment] with the babies experiencing internal bleeding. Additional information is available in video interviews at the following link:
https://biggeesblog.cymru/index.php/2021/06/06/gene-therapy-mrna-injections-its-worse-than-you-think/
The information provided by Dr Bridle conflicts with the information provided by the MHRA. They asserts the mRNA should be injected into the deltoid muscle in the arm and should not enter the blood stream . Dr Bridle’s findings may help to explain the alarming number of adverse reactions [including serious injury and death] following receipt of these experimental mRNA / DNA based treatments. The latest data published by MHRA is set out below.

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]
Adverse Reaction Overview
Data to 26 May 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system

AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 695,214 – total fatalities 831
Moderna – total adverse reactions 7,014 – total fatalities 4
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 183,752 – total fatalities 396
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 2,216 – total fatalities 22
Total – adverse reactions 888,196 – total fatalities 1,253

In view of these disturbing findings by Dr Byram Bridle, an external investigation has been initiated. To inform the investigation I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000 / E I R 2004.

  1. Details of the training provided to clinicians [doctors and nurses] tasked with administering the experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccines] in Wales, and
  2. A copy of the literature provided to the general public, prior to receiving the treatment, to inform them of the risks of adverse reaction [including serious injury and death] to enable them to take informed decisions on whether they wish to receive the experimental mRNA / DNA based treatment, pending the end of Phase-3 trials in 2023. 

As you are no doubt aware, experimentation on human beings is a clear breach of the “Nuremberg Code” as reproduced in Annex 01 below.
 
I look forward to receiving the information, now requested, at your earliest convenience. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time.

In addition to responding to my request for information would you please keep the Minister – the Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS – informed on the actions “NHS Wales” intends to take to address the serious concerns raised by Dr Byram Bridle. Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS Minister for Health and Social Services – Wales

 


Annex 01
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 gene-editing treatments 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.

148 Response (1)

Subject: ActionPoint call 2667314 – C J 148: Covid 19 vaccination programme – Wales. R
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:58:25 +0100 (BST)
From: DHCW.FOI@wales.nhs.uk
Reply-To: DHCW.FOI@wales.nhs.uk
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Wynne,

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your request for information.

Kind regards,

Marcus Sandberg
Arweinydd Cenedlaethol Sicrwydd a Chefnogaeth Llywodraethu | National Information Governance Assurance and Support Lead
Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth | Information Governance
Iechyd a Gofal Digidol Cymru | Digital Health and Care Wales

Gweld galwad / View call (2667314) (angen mynediad at y rhwydwaith a mewngofnodi / requires network and login access)
Gweld cynnydd yr alwad hon / View progress of this call (angen mynediad at y rhwydwaith / requires network access)

Anfonwyd y neges e-bost gan / Email sent by: ID:4167 25/06/2021 11:58


148 Response (2)

Subject: FOI6336
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:09:26 +0000
From: Hannah Jones (Hywel Dda UHB – Corporate Information Officer) <Hannah.Jones33@wales.nhs.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Annwyl/Dear Wynne,

Amgaewch ein hymateb i’ch cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth.

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your Freedom of Information request.

Diolch/Thank you,

 

Hannah Jones.

Corporate Information Officer/Swyddog Gwybodaeth Corfforaethol

Rhif Ffôn / Telephone Number: 01267 239654(WHTN 01825 4654)

E-bost/ Email: Hannah.jones33@wales.nhs.uk


149 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  06  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Covid 19 Pfizer / BioNTech gene-editing treatment [vaccine] – Emergency authorisation for use in children [12 – 15 years of age].

I refer to the above subject and attach document downloaded from MHRA website [LINK].

I note that, with effect from 4 June 2021, the extension by MHRA to the current UK authorisation for emergency use of the Pfizer / BioNTech Covid 19 gene-editing treatment [vaccine] that allows its use in children aged 12 to 15 years. I further note that the decision has been taken following a rigorous review of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the experimental treatment in this age group, with 2000 children aged 12 to 15 studied as part of a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the F O I Act 2000 / E I R 2004.

  1. The end date for the placebo-controlled clinical trial for children aged 12 to 15.
  2. The results of the placebo-controlled clinical trial.
  3. A copy of the report prepared by MHRA following your rigorous review, with recommendation to the “Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation” [J C V I].

I have not been able to locate the information on MHRA website, hence my request for the information. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


149 Response

Subject: FOI 21/651 CSC 53883
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:28:05 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

We have carefully reviewed clinical trial data for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in over 2000 children aged 12 to 15 years of age and have concluded that that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk and that it is effective and acceptably safe in this age group. This data has also been reviewed by the independent Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), its COVID-19 vaccine benefit-risk expert working group, as well as the Paediatric Medicines Expert Advisory Group.

No new side effects were identified and the safety data in children was comparable with that seen in young adults. As in the young adult age group, the majority of adverse events were mild to moderate, relating to reactogenicity (e.g. sore arm and tiredness.)

The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) met on 27 May 2021 to discuss the request to vary the existing authorisation to extend the approval to apply to children aged 12 – 15 years old.

The CHM considered the results of randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials in over 2000 children aged 12 – 15 years.

The immunogenicity results (showing how well the vaccine works), studied in approximately 200 children, demonstrated similar neutralising antibody levels in adolescents aged 12-15 years compared with the levels in young adults aged 16-25 years.

These results are supported by a very high level of short-term efficacy data in adolescents against symptomatic disease after 2 doses of vaccine 21 days apart.

In participants with no prior evidence of infection there were no cases of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group from 7 days after the second dose compared with 16 cases in the placebo group.

Consistent with what was seen in adults there was evidence that the vaccine provides protection even before the administration of dose 2. There were no cases seen in the vaccine group from 11 days after dose 1 compared to 31 in the placebo group. Prior to day 11 there were 3 cases in the vaccine group and 4 on placebo.

Safety data in children aged 12-15 years is available from one clinical trial. This safety data is supported by the safety data from the clinical trials in individuals aged 16 years and over, together with a large amount of real-world data on the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. This has been closely monitored as the vaccine has been rolled out both in the UK and internationally. This experience has reinforced the conclusion that the benefits of the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine continue to outweigh any possible side effects.

The MHRA’s assessment of the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in adolescents is available in Annex 1 of the below-linked Public Assessment Report (PAR):

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine#further-information

Furthermore, the study of the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the link to this is also provided below:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107456

You may be interested to know that other regulatory authorities around the world, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), US FDA and Health Canada, have also approved the use of the vaccine in 12 – 15 year olds.  Nearly 5 million 12 – 15 year olds in the USA have now received the vaccine, of whom 3.5 million have received both doses CDC COVID Data Tracker .  In Canada, 1.5 million 12 – 17 year olds have received the vaccine.

Regarding your specific questions:

  1. The end date for the placebo-controlled clinical trial for children aged 12 to 15.

The main efficacy and safety results have been submitted to MHRA, sufficient that the Pfizer vaccine can be authorised for use in adolescents 12-15 years of age. This trial is currently ongoing to follow-up vaccine recipients to collect additional safety data, in the same way that all clinical trials for new medicines follow up their study subjects after the main results of the study have been reported. The date for the end of this trial is May 2023.

  1. The results of the placebo-controlled clinical trial.
  2. A copy of the report prepared by MHRA following your rigorous review, with recommendation to the “Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation” [J C V I].

Please see the link to the PAR that has been provided above.

Best regards

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000

gov.uk/mhra


150 Enquiry

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

Date: 20  June  2021

Dear Dr June Raine

Subject: Covid 19 Janssen Vaccine –  Marketing Authorisation No. P L G B 00242/0742 – Concerns regarding premature emergency authorisation for use in the human population

I refer to the above subject and attach hereto “Summary of Product Characteristics” [LINK] published on Gov.UK website 28 May 2021. The content of the document suggests that premature emergency authorisation may have been granted by MHRA for this experimental gene therapy [vaccine]. Areas of particular concern are listed below.

  1. The experimental therapy [vaccine] was granted emergency authorisation 28 May 2021 by MHRA, prior to the Public Assessment Report [PAR] being finalised and published.
  2. Events of anaphylaxis have been reported.
  3. Not suitable for those suffering from an acute severe febrile illness or acute infection.
  4. A combination of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, in some cases accompanied by bleeding has been observed. This includes severe cases of venous thrombosis at unusual sites such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [CVST], splanchnic vein thrombosis and arterial thrombosis concomitant with thrombocytopenia. Fatal outcomes have been reported. These cases occurred within the first three weeks following vaccination, and mostly in women under 60 years of age.
  5. Not suitable for individuals with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis [HITT and HIT type 2].
  6. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine has not been assessed in immunocompromised individuals, including those receiving immunosuppressant therapy.
  7. On-going clinical trials to determine the duration of protection afforded by the experimental therapy [vaccine].
  8. No interaction studies have been performed. Concomitant administration of Covid 19 Vaccine Janssen with other vaccines has not been studied.
  9. Limited experience with the use of Covid 19 Vaccine Janssen in pregnant women.
  10. Not known whether Covid 19 Vaccine Janssen is excreted in human milk.
  11. Phase 3 study [COV3001] is ongoing. Medium and long-term impacts are not known.
  12. Adverse reactions are listed in attached document dated 28 May 2021 published on Gov.UK website.
  13. Further evidence is awaited by MHRA with annual reviews to be undertaken. This suggests ongoing experimentation on the human population.
  14. No genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies have been undertaken     

In view of the concerns listed above emergency authorisation by MHRA on 28 May 2021 for use in the human population is considered premature.

I request that urgent consideration be given to revoking the emergency authorisation, pending further assessment by MHRA to mitigate risk of further serious harm [including death] to the human population, and pending completion, and publication, of Public Assessment Report [PAR] by MHRA. Continued roll-out of this experimental therapy [vaccine] constitutes ongoing experimentation on the human population in breach of the Nuremberg Code, as set out in Annex 1 below.

I look forward to your response to my request at your earliest convenience.       

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex 1
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 gene-editing treatments 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.

150 Response

Subject: CSC 55413 – C J 150: Covid 19 Janssen Vaccine – Marketing Authorisation No. P L G B 00242/0742 – Concerns regarding premature emergency authorisation for use in the human population
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:25:13 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Regarding the grant of a marketing authorisation for the Janssen vaccine, this was not done under Regulation 174 – i.e. this vaccine has been granted a marketing authorisation. Further, as with the other vaccines, we do not consider the Janssen vaccine to be “experimental”. The main efficacy and safety results for the Phase I, II and III trials have been submitted to MHRA, sufficient that these vaccines can be authorised for use in the patient populations stated in the Information for Healthcare Professionals/Summary of Product Characteristics for each vaccine. These studies are currently ongoing to follow-up vaccine recipients to collect additional safety data, in the same way that all clinical trials for new medicines follow up their study subjects after the main results of the study have been reported. Other studies that are currently in progress are either for cohorts/subpopulations of recipients (such as pregnant women or children/adolescents) or to investigate different regimens (such as giving different brands of vaccine for the first and second doses).

The Public Assessment Report for this vaccine can be found here: Regulatory approval of COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Kind regards,

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000


151 Enquiry

Health and Social Care Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Date: 26  June  2021

Dear Committee Members

Subject: Health Committee Report entitled “The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”

From your archive records, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the following report.

House of Commons Health Committee Report entitled “The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Fourth Report of Session 2004 – 05, Volume 1, 22 March 2005“.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


151 Response

Subject: RE: C J 151 – Health Committee Report entitled “The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry”
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:43:14 +0000
From: Health and Social Care Committee <hsccom@parliament.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: Health and Social Care Committee <hsccom@parliament.uk>

 

Dear Wynne,

Thank you for your email, and apologies for the delay in responding.

Please find a link to The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Fourth Report of Session 2004 – 05, Volume 1, 22 March 2005“.

Best wishes

Health and Social Care Committee Secretariat

House of Commons | London | SW1A 0AA  

Website: www.parliament.uk/hsccom

Twitter: @CommonsHealth 


152 Enquiry

Customer Contact Team
COG-UK Consortium
Addenbrooks Hospital
Hills Road
Cambridgeshire
CB2 0SP
United Kingdom

Date: 28  June  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: COG-UK – Role of Covid 19 RT-PCR test in genome sequencing process

Helpful information is provided on your website regarding the role of “Covid 19 Genomics UK Consortium” [COG-UK].

I note that your consortium comprised diagnostic laboratories [NHS laboratories and Lighthouse laboratories]. It would be helpful if you could provide clarification on how tests results provided by these laboratories are used in the Covid 19 genome sequencing and analysis process. Are the tests restricted to RT-PCR to diagnose Covid 19 infection or are other tests also used. Any technical information you are able to provide regarding the role of RT-PCR [or other] test would be helpful. If the information is currently published on your website a link to the relevant document will suffice. Thank you.   

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


152 Response

Subject: RE: C J 152: COG-UK – Role of Covid 19 RT-PCR test in genome sequencing process
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:19:18 +0100
From: Sarah Judges <contact@cogconsortium.uk>
To: ‘Wynne Jones’ <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne,

Thank you very much for your email. 

I have checked with one of my colleagues and can provide the following answer to your question –   The samples sequenced are generally from diagnostic PCR tests

(https://www.cogconsortium.uk/how-do-we-collect-and-sequence-sars-cov-2-samples/), although wastewater sampling is used in some areas:

https://www.cogconsortium.uk/what-can-wastewater-tell-us-about-covid-19/

Best wishes

Sarah

Sarah Judges

Executive Assistant to Professor Sharon Peacock

Administrator COG-UK

University of Cambridge

Department of Medicine

srj40@medschl.cam.ac.uk 

 


153 Enquiry

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

Date: 29  June  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Covid 19 Ferret Register Wales

I refer to the above subject and attach copy of “Advice for pet owners: Coronavirus [Covid 19]” downloaded from Gov.Wales website [LINK]. The advice was last updated 17 June 2021.

I note the establishment of a Covid 19 voluntary ferret register in Wales with plans for a compulsory register at a future date.

Reference is made, in your documentation, to research demonstrating that new variants of SARS-CoV-2 can arise in ferrets and other mustelinae and that infection can spread within their own species, and that ferrets are known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 virus. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004.

Can you please provide a copy of the scientific evidence available to Welsh Government confirming that “new variants of SARS-CoV-2 can arise in ferrets and other mustelinae and that infection can spread within their own species, and that ferrets are known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


153 Response 01

Subject: Final Response – ATISN 15283 – C J – 153 Covid 19 Ferret Register Wales
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:07:34 +0000
From: animaldiseases@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Good afternoon, Mr Jones,

Please see attached [LINK to 5 PDF docs in zip folder for download] the final response from the Welsh Government regarding the Freedom of Information Request:

ATISN 15283 – CJ – 153 Covid 19 Ferret Register Wales

Regards,

Polisi Clefydau Anifeiliaid / Animal Disease Policy

Swyddfa’r Prif Swyddog Milfeddygol / Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer

Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government

E-bost / E-mail: animaldiseases@gov.wales

 


153 Reply To Response 01 

Animal Disease Policy Branch
Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer
Welsh Government

Date: 05  July  2021

Dear Animal Disease Policy Branch

Subject: Covid 19 Ferret Register Wales – Final Response – ATISN 15283

Thank you for your prompt reply to my request for information in a letter dated 5 July, with attachments.

I note that the steps taken to protect public health from the infection with dangerous variants is based on scientific research into the susceptibility of mammals to the virus, with the evidence informing guidance issued by the Welsh Government regarding SARS-CoV-2 virus and the potential risks presented by ferrets and other mustelinae. Having carefully examined the scientific papers provided I offer the following additional observations.

I note that studies published in preprint [not certified by peer review] are based on RT-PCR tests. I must advise you that the study findings, drawn to my attention, have been superseded by external peer review undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. A copy of the paper is attached hereto. You will note that 10 major scientific flaws were found at molecular and methodological level. The review concluded, for the reasons stated, that the RT-PCR test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. The review conclusions are endorsed in recent court rulings. A chronology of current litigation on this subject is set out in Annex 1 below.

In the studies you have drawn to my attention, I note that amplification cycles [C t value] of between 35 and 40 were used. I must again advise you that the RT-PCR test actually measures the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could be a piece of dead virus. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model, hence the ongoing litigation. A C t value of 35 amplifies the fragment of partial RNA 34 billion times [34,359,738,368]. A C t value of 40 amplifies the fragment of partial RNA 1099 billion times [1099,511,627,776]. Additional information is available in the attached document.

In view of the above, I would be grateful if you could review your decision to introduce a Covid 19 Ferret Register in Wales taking into consideration the latest scientific evidence available regarding the validity of the RT-PCR test to diagnose Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus] and update the guidance published on Welsh Government website.

I look forward to your further observations when you have been fully briefed on the latest scientific information available and the court rulings regarding the validity, and use, of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19. Thank you.          

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of current litigation

8 April 2021

In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.

24 March 2021

The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness.

Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:

1] Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or

2] Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or

3] Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.

None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.

15 December 2020

“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

11 November 2020

An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.

Supporting documents attached to the above letter:  [LINK 1 & LINK 2]


154 Enquiry

Customer Service Team
Customer Service Centre
Ceredigion County Council
Canolfan Rheidol
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
SY23 UE

Date: 30  June  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject: Modifications to public highway layout at Cardigan Town

I refer to the above subject and attach photographs taken 30 June 2021 [LINK to Zip Folder download].

I note the carriageway and public foot-way modifications to the public highway network at Cardigan Town. The work comprises the provision of concrete kerbs and tarmacking to extend the public foot-ways into the carriageway at various locations, as indicated in the photographs provided. I would be grateful if you could seek clarification from your highways department and confirm the statutory powers available to your Authority to undertake the works. Are the works:

  1. Temporary modifications under statutory powers available to your Authority pursuant to “Coronavirus Act 2020” to facilitate social distancing, with the original layout to be restored at a future date, or
  2. Permanent modifications under statutory powers available to your Authority pursuant to “Highways Act 1980 [as amended]“.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


154 Response

Subject: FW: ACTION:ASSIGN / CLICREF:T300621-276175 / SUBJECT:C J 154: Modifications to public highway layout at Cardigan Town
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:04:20 +0000
From: Ceredigion Technical Services <technical.services@ceredigion.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

SH/BB/Hwys9/Clic276175

Dear Mr Jones

I refer to your email dated 30 June 2021.  Any works in the Highway are done with the Statutory Powers that Local Authority’s have under the Highways Act 1980 as the Local Highway Authority for Ceredigion.

Whether the works are permanent or temporary (as in this case).  The LHA has that statutory right to do so and have been carried out under the powers afforded by the Highways Act 1980.  The Coronavirus Act 2020 does not cover this, however the justification for the LHA doing such works is i.e public health and safety.

Yours sincerely

Steve Hallows

Service Manager – Highways Development

For Rhodri Llwyd

Corporate Lead Officer: Highways and Environmental Services


155 Enquiry

Customer Service Team
Customer Service Centre
Ceredigion County Council
Canolfan Rheidol
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
SY23 UE

Date: 04  July  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject:   Modifications to public highway and foot-way Pendre Cardigan

I refer to recent modifications to the public highway and foot-way at Pendre Cardigan as indicated in photographs attached hereto [LINK]. Following concerns drawn to my attention, I would be grateful if you could arrange to respond to the following 5-point enquiry to clarify health and safety responsibilities.

  1. Is the surface of the extended public foot-way now “vested” in your local highway authority pursuant to S.263 [1] of Highways Act 1980 and maintained at public expense under S.36 [2] of the Act. 
  2. Is Pendre Cafe [as business owner] required to serve their customers on tables outside on the extended public foot-way rather than inside their cafe.
  3. Is Pendre Cafe [as business owner] responsible for the health and safety of their customers while seated at tables on the extended public foot-way, or does responsibility rest with your local highway authority.
  4. Are there any financial implications for business owners in terms of business rates, resulting from these arrangements.
  5. Does Ceredigion County Council have a planned date for restoring the original public highway and foot-way layout at Cardigan.  

I look forward to receiving clarification at your earliest convenience so that I may respond to enquiries received from the public. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


155 Response
Awaiting reply


156 Enquiry

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

Date: 04  July  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Genomic Sequencing data harvested from Covid 19 RT-PCR test results

I refer to a press release published by DHSC 2 July 2021. A copy is attached hereto [LINK]. From your records, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004.

I would be pleased to receive the contact details [name and email address] of the designated data controller under Data Protection Act 2018 for the genomic sequencing data harvested from Covid 19 RT-PCR test results in the UK.

Additional information regarding the “genomic sequencing” process is set out in your press release, as attached. Harvesting of human DNA [deoxyribose nucleic acid] is classified as “personal data” by the Information Commissioner and therefore subject to the provisions of the D P A 2018. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


156 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1343025
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:34:03 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Ms Jones,

Sorry for the delay in processing your FOI request. Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your request (our ref: FOI-1343025).

Yours sincerely, 

Ruiz Alexander
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


157 Enquiry

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

Date: 04  July  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

I attach report entitled “The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 Volume 1” dated 22 March 2005 [LINK]. The report was kindly provided by the “House of Commons Health Committee”. Your attention is drawn specifically to the Conclusions and Recommendations set out in pages 114 to 120. You will note that 48 recommendations for change was made in the report.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the report prepared by UK Government in response to the recommendations made by the House of Commons Health Committee, setting out which, if any, of the 48 recommendations for change are to be implemented by UK Government.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   U K Parliament – Health and Social Services Committee


157 Response
Awaiting reply


158 Enquiry

Open letter to:

Eifion Evans
Chief Executive Officer
Ceredigion County Council
Canolfan Rheidol
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
SY23 UE

Date: 06  July  2021

Dear Mr Evans

Subject: Covid Safe Zones at Cardigan and Aberaeron

I refer to the above subject and include 3 attachments [LINK 1 | LINK 2 | LINK 3] including an abstract from “Tivy-Side Advertiser” dated 6 July. The content of the articles should be self-explanatory. 

Decisions taken by your Authority regarding Covid 19 Safe Zones at Cardigan and Aberaeron Town are based on Covid 19 “case” numbers. Case numbers, in turn, are based on the results of RT-PCR test for Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus]. I must draw your attention to the latest scientific evidence regarding the validity, and use, of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19, as presented in an external peer review undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. The review findings are set out in the attached paper, and additional information is also attached as a “Fact Sheet”.  You will note, from the peer review, that 10 major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded, for the reasons stated, that the RT-PCR test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. The review findings have been endorsed in recent court rulings. A chronology of recent litigation on this subject is set out in Annex 1 below for your information.

I would be grateful if you seek clarification from Welsh Government why this important information has not been drawn to your attention as a Local Authority to enable you to take informed decisions regarding safe zones at Cardigan and Aberaeron.

It would be helpful if you could arrange to undertake a review of your Safe Zone policy based on the latest scientific information available, taking into consideration recent court rulings regarding the validity, and use, of the RT-PCR test for Covid 19, as “case” numbers inform Local Authority Covid 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   The Editor – Tivy-Side Advertiser

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of current litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]           Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


158 Response
Awaiting reply


159 Enquiry

Open letter to:

Rt Hon Eluned Morgan MS
Minister for Health and Social Services
Welsh Government
5th Floor
Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 06  July  2021

Dear Minister

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccination roll-out in Wales

I refer to the above subject and attach hereto article published in Tivy-Side Advertiser 6 July. The content should be self explanatory .

I note, as Minister for Health and Social Services, you have advised that the public in Wales “should take two doses to have the best chance of reducing risk of serious illness“.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to review your advice taking into consideration the latest alarming information regarding adverse reactions, serious illness and death following roll-out. A summary of the information published by medical regulators in the UK, Europe and America, as set out below.

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]
Adverse Reaction Overview

Data to 23 June 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system
AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 762,706 – total fatalities 936
Moderna – total adverse reactions 18,548 – total fatalities 5
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 223,404 – total fatalities 439
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 2,595 – total fatalities 23
Total – adverse reactions 1,007,253 – total deaths 1,403
It should be noted that, for various reasons, between 1% and 10% of actual adverse reactions [and deaths] following roll-out are reported to, and recorded on, MHRA “yellow card” reporting system. The information provided above can therefore be adjusted accordingly.    

Data to 22 May 2021 – from EudraVigilance: European database of injuries and deaths following roll-out of the following experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccines]
mRNA Moderna [CX-024414]
mRNA Pfizer / BioNTech
AstraZeneca [Chadox 1 N CoV-19]
Janssen [AD26.CoV2.S]
Total injuries 1,196,190 – total deaths 12,184
It should be noted that from the total injuries recorded, there are 604,744 serious injuries.
Serious injury is defined as: A medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly / birth defect.  
 
Data to 25 June 2021 – from VAERS Covid Vaccine Data [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System USA]
Deaths – 6,985
Hospitalisations – 23,257
Urgent Case – 54,606
Office visits – 77,821
Anaphylaxis – 1,775
Bell’s Palsy – 2,081

Links to official vaccine adverse reaction monitoring systems in UK [MHRA yellow card], Europe [EudraVigilance reporting / monitoring system] and America [VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] are available below.
MHRA 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
EudraVigilance
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/pharmacovigilance/eudravigilance
VAERS
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

As you are aware, these gene-editing therapies [vaccines] have not been approved for use in the human population by medical regulators in UK, Europe and America. In the UK, Phase 3 trials are due to end in May 2023. They have been granted temporary emergency use by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA] under S.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

As the Minister with responsibility for Health and Social Services in Wales, I would be grateful if you could undertake an urgent review to establish why the risk of serious injury and death, post-vaccination, has not been drawn to the attention of the general public in Wales to enable informed decisions to be taken, and why the public have not been informed that these experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines] have not been approved for use by MHRA in the human population. I respectfully draw your attention to the “Nuremberg Code“, as set out in Annex 1 below.

I look forward to the outcome of the review at your earliest convenience. Thank you.    

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   The Editor – Tivy-Side Advertiser

Annex 1
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 gene-editing treatments 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.

159 Response

Awaiting reply


160 Enquiry

Open letter to:

Director General and Editor in Chief
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA

Date: 06  July 2021

Dear Tim Davie

Subject: BBC New – Coronavirus “Case” Numbers

I refer to the above subject and write to draw your attention to the fact that your Health Editor, Hugh Pym, and Medical Editor, Fergus Walsh, provide, in daily news bulletins, the latest coronavirus “case numbers”. No effort is made to explain to your viewers that coronavirus  “case numbers” are based on Covid 19  RT-PCR test results and that the test has been found to be not fit for purpose.

As supporting evidence, I attach details [LINK] of external peer review undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. You will note that 10 major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found with the review concluding that the test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. The findings are endorsed in recent court rulings: a chronology of current litigation on the subject is set out in Annex 1 below.

I would be grateful if you could ensure henceforth that your Health and Medical Editors explain to your viewers that the RT-PCR test should not be used to diagnose viral infection when presenting daily coronavirus “case number”. This is to ensure accuracy in the statistics generated from the raw data, and based on latest scientific evidence supported by court judgements. Thank you.  
  
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholder [for information]
UK Parliament – Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of current litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]           Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


160 Response

Awaiting reply


161 Enquiry

Health and Social Care Committee
Welsh Parliament
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1SN

Date: 12  July  2021

Dear Committee Members

Subject: Covid 19 – The Science behind the RT-PCR test

I refer to the above subject. The latest scientific evidence, supported by recent court judgements, suggests that totally misleading health data has been presented to Welsh Government Ministers to inform political decisions regarding economic lockdown in Wales.  

The validity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus] was challenged in an external peer review by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists, published 1 December 2020. Details of the review findings are attached hereto [LINK]. You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded that the test should not be used for diagnosis of any viral infection. The review findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements. A chronology of recent litigation is set out in Annex 1 below. Amplification Cycle [C t value] of 45 has been used in Wales as confirmed by Public Health Wales [this was originally recommended by WHO for use in European and USA laboratories]. This amplifies viral fragment 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false test results upon which political decisions regarding economic lockdown was taken. This undermines Welsh Government Covid 19 response strategy and policy. Over-amplification of pieces of nucleotides inflates case numbers by the inclusion of healthy people. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model, hence the ongoing litigation. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been isolated, purified and sequenced and therefore does not conform to the gold standard for identifying a virus as set out in Koch’s Postulates. It is not possible therefore to establish whether the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate can not be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. The test can not detect new variants as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated. RT-PCR cannot be used to detect viruses that have not been decoded [sequenced] beforehand. A complete decoding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, which is necessary in order to know what exactly is being replicated using RT-PCR, has never taken place. Moreover, there is no electron micrograph of a pure and fully characterized SARS-CoV-2 virus. Indirect detection procedures [RT-PCR and antibody tests] do not confirm the existence of a certain virus and they certainly do not deliver evidence of a disease-causing virus. It remains unclear why genomic sequencing is now being undertaken utilising the results from fraudulent RT-PCR tests. Public officials, at national and local level, have made drastic public health emergency decisions, based upon faulty RT-PCR data. These decisions have impacted civil liberties, economic viability and educational systems, among other things. All restrictive measures undertaken by Welsh Government and Local Authorities are based on “coronavirus case numbers” generated by a fraudulent testing process, as now confirmed in court judgements. This has resulted in a false RT-PCR generated pandemic rather than a viral pandemic. Litigation is progressing nationally in UK and globally to bring the perpetrators of the fraud to justice.

I would be grateful if your “Health and Social Care Committee” could take the important information, now provided regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 infection, into consideration in your overview / scrutiny role. 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)

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of recent litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]           Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


161 Response

Awaiting reply


162 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
NHS Wales

Date: 12  July  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: NHS Wales External Whistleblowing Policy

I attach copy of latest version of “NHS England External Whistleblowing Policy” downloaded from NHS website 12 July 2021. [LINK]

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the latest version of “NHS Wales External Whistleblowing Policy“. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


162 Response

Dear Wynne,

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your request for information.

Kind regards,

Marcus Sandberg

Arweinydd Cenedlaethol Sicrwydd a Chefnogaeth Llywodraethu | National Information Governance Assurance and Support Lead
Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth | Information Governance
Iechyd a Gofal Digidol Cymru | Digital Health and Care Wales

Gweld galwad / View call (2751821) (angen mynediad at y rhwydwaith a mewngofnodi / requires network and login access)
Gweld cynnydd yr alwad hon / View progress of this call (angen mynediad at y rhwydwaith / requires network access)

Anfonwyd y neges e-bost gan / Email sent by: ID:4167 03/08/2021 17:00


163 Enquiry

Health and Social Services Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Date: 13  July  2021

Dear Committee Members

Subject: Covid 19 – The Science behind the RT-PCR test

I refer to the above subject. The latest scientific evidence, supported by recent court judgements, suggests that totally misleading health data has been presented to UK Government Ministers to inform political decisions regarding economic lockdown.   

The validity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus] was challenged in an external peer review by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists, published 1 December 2020.

Details of the review findings are attached hereto [LINK]. You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded that the test should NOT be used for diagnosis of any viral infection. The review findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements. A chronology of recent litigation is set out in Annex 1 below.

Amplification Cycle [C t value] of 45 has been used in the UK [this was originally recommended by WHO for use in European and USA laboratories]. This amplifies viral fragment 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false test results upon which political decisions regarding economic lockdown was taken.

This undermines U K Government Covid 19 response strategy and policy. Over-amplification of pieces of nucleotides inflates case numbers by the inclusion of healthy people. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model, hence the ongoing litigation.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has NOT been isolated, purified and sequenced and therefore does not conform to the gold standard for identifying a virus as set out in Koch’s Postulates. It is not possible therefore to establish whether the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate can not be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. The test can not detect new variants as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated. RT-PCR cannot be used to detect viruses that have not been decoded [sequenced] beforehand. A complete decoding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, which is necessary in order to know what exactly is being replicated using RT-PCR, has never taken place. Moreover, there is no electron micrograph of a pure and fully characterized SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Indirect detection procedures [RT-PCR and antibody tests] do not confirm the existence of a certain virus and they certainly do not deliver evidence of a disease-causing virus. It remains unclear why genomic sequencing is now being undertaken utilising the results from fraudulent RT-PCR tests. Public officials, at national and local level, have made drastic public health emergency decisions, based upon faulty RT-PCR data. These decisions have impacted civil liberties, economic viability and educational systems, among other things. All restrictive measures undertaken by U K Government and Local Authorities are based on “coronavirus case numbers” generated by a fraudulent testing process, as now confirmed in court judgements. This has resulted in a false RT-PCR generated pandemic rather than a viral pandemic. Litigation is progressing nationally in the UK and globally to bring the perpetrators of the fraud to justice.

I would be grateful if your “Health and Social Services Committee” could take the important information, now provided regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 infection, into consideration in your overview / scrutiny role. 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)

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of recent litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]           Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]           Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


163 Response

Awaiting reply


164 Enquiry

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

Date: 13  July  2021

Dear First Minister

Subject:  Covid 19 gene-editing therapies [vaccines] – Informed Consent

I refer to the above subject. Disturbing information has been drawn to my attention suggesting that Covid 19 vaccination centres in Wales may have been operating unlawfully in administering experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines] without explaining the risks of adverse reactions [including death] to those receiving the treatments. The latest information relating to adverse reactions published by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA] is set out below.

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]
Adverse Reaction Overview

Data to 1 July 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system
AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 775,940 – total fatalities 960
Moderna – total adverse reactions 22,191 – total fatalities 6
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 236,555 – total fatalities 450
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 2,690 – total fatalities 24
Total – adverse reactions 1,037,376 – total deaths 1,440
It is estimated that, for various reasons, only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. The information provided above can therefore be adjusted accordingly.    

As you are no doubt aware, a different regulatory assessment / authorisation process applies to “experimental gene-editing therapies” and “vaccines“.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to undertake an urgent review to establish whether vaccination centres in Wales are currently operating unlawfully and administering experimental mRNA / DNA gene-editing therapies to the population of Wales without informed consent. Additional information is contained within the “fact sheet” on the subject of informed consent, available at the link below.

https://biggeesblog.cymru/PDF/Fact-sheet_informed_consent.pdf

I look forward to the outcome of your review at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
 
Yours faithfully,

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


164 Response

Awaiting reply


165 Enquiry

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

Date: 13  July  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject: V-Safe Covid 19 Vaccine Pregnancy Register

I refer to the above subject. I note that, due to the limited amount of data available regarding the safety of Covid 19 experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines] for pregnant women, the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” [CDC] in America has established the “V-Safe Vaccine Pregnancy Register” to learn more about the issue.

I write to enquire whether MHRA in the UK also intend to establish a “V-Safe Vaccine Pregnancy Register” to mitigate the risk of further harm to pregnant women in the UK, following roll-out of the experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines]. I look forward to receiving clarification at your earliest convenience. Thank you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


165 Response

BGB Note: It seems that Ella – the replier – is getting a bit flustered with all our correspondence! Wynne our Correspondence Journal editor assures me that he has checked his ‘tackle’ carefully, and is confident that he is still a male and not pregnant!

Subject: CSC 58300 C J 165: V-Safe Covid 19 Vaccine Pregnancy Register
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:45:27 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

The Immunisation department at Public Health England (PHE) follows up pregnancies across the UK where certain vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccine, were given without you being aware of your pregnancy at the time of vaccination. If you haven’t already done so, please ask your GP practice to register your pregnancy with PHE or if you want to self-report, please notify the Vaccination In Pregnancy team using the form available via the link:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vaccination-in-pregnancy-vip

In addition PHE have encouraged pregnant women to sign up to the Vaccine Monitoring scheme, Homepage | Vaccine Monitor (mhra.gov.uk)

 

Kind regards,

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000

gov.uk/mhra


166 Enquiry

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

Date: 14  July  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Health and Social Care Act 2008 – Statutory Instrument [Regulated Activities]

I attach copy of “Health and Social Care Act 2008 [Regulated Activities] [Amendment] [Coronavirus] Regulations 2021“.[LINK]

The “explanatory note” confirms that a full Impact Assessment of the costs and benefits of the instrument is available from the D H S C. The relevant text is highlighted for your convenience.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the Impact Assessment at your convenience. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


166 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1347980
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:36:48 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref:FOI-1347980).

Yours sincerely, 

Michael Pierson
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


167 Enquiry

Director General and Editor in Chief
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA

Date: 16  July  2021

Dear Tim Davie

Subject: Covid 19 – Misleading information provided by BBC 16 July 2021

I refer to the above subject and write to draw your attention to misleading information provided by BBC on 16 July 2021. The report [presented initially on BBC Breakfast] asserted that Covid 19 infection may cause the body’s immune system to attack itself. There is no scientific or medical evidence to support that assertion. There is compelling scientific and medical evidence to suggest that it is the experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines] now being administered that may cause the body’s immune system to attack itself: a process known as “antibody-dependent enhancement“. Additional information is available in the attached papers by 1] Doctors for Covid Ethics and [LINK] 2]  Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg / Dr Michael Yeadon [LINK]. Please note the content and arrange to issue a correction in your News bulletins to avoid misleading information being provided to public on this subject. Thank you.      

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

 

Stakeholder [for information]
U K Parliament – Digital Culture Media and Sports Committee 


167 Response

Awaiting reply


168 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 18  July  2021

Dear Correspondence Team,

Subject: Confirmation that Health Secretary has tested positive for Covid 19

I refer to the announcement on Saturday 17 July that the Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, had tested positive for Covid 19, following RT-PCR test, despite being fully vaccinated and may now, along with any close contacts, need to self-isolate.

As you are aware, from scientific papers and court judgements previously drawn to your attention under separate cover, the RT-PCR test should not be used for the diagnosis of Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus] .The validity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 was challenged in an external peer review by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists, published 1 December 2020. Details of the review findings are attached hereto [LINK].

You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded that the test should not be used for diagnosis of any viral infection. The review findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements. Amplification Cycle [C t value] of 45 has been used in the UK [this was originally recommended by WHO for use in European and USA laboratories]. This amplifies viral fragment 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false test results upon which political decisions regarding economic lockdown was based.

Over-amplification of pieces of nucleotides inflates case numbers by the inclusion of healthy people. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model, hence the ongoing litigation. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been isolated, purified and sequenced and therefore does not conform to the gold standard for identifying a virus as set out in Koch’s Postulates.

It is not possible therefore to establish whether the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate can not be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. The test can not detect new variants as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated. RT-PCR cannot be used to detect viruses that have not been decoded [sequenced] beforehand. A complete decoding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, which is necessary in order to know what exactly is being replicated using RT-PCR, has never taken place. Moreover, there is no electron micrograph of a pure and fully characterized SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Indirect detection procedures [RT-PCR and antibody tests] do not confirm the existence of a certain virus and they certainly do not deliver evidence of a disease-causing virus. It remains unclear why genomic sequencing is now being undertaken utilising the results from fraudulent RT-PCR tests. Public officials, at national and local level, have made drastic public health emergency decisions, based upon faulty RT-PCR data.

These decisions have impacted civil liberties, economic viability and educational systems, among other things. All restrictive measures undertaken by national UK Government, devolved administrations [Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland] and Local Authorities are based on “coronavirus case numbers” generated by a fraudulent testing process, as now confirmed in court judgements. This has resulted in a false RT-PCR generated pandemic rather than a viral pandemic. Litigation is progressing nationally in UK and globally to bring the perpetrators of the fraud to justice.

Information accompanying the Covid 19 RT-PCR test kits clearly states that the test may not only react to SARS-CoV-2 but also other viruses and even bacteria. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identification. The primers used in the test are an infinitesimal fragment of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome made up of 18 to 24 bases [nucleotides] each, while the SARS-CoV-2 virus is assumed to consist of 30,000 bases i.e. the primers represent only 0.07%of the virus genome. As the viral genome was part-constructed by computer model the process is considered scientific fraud.

Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19 can provide you with a copy of the “Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR test. A chronology of recent litigation regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 is set out in Annex 1 below.

In summary, there is no requirement for the Health Secretary Sajid Javid, or close contacts, to self-isolate based on the results of what is now considered to be a fraudulent testing process. In view of the ongoing litigation regarding the invalidity of the test, and for file record purpose, I would be grateful if you could confirm “the date” this letter, and accompanying Annex, is circulated to Cabinet Members to inform U K Government Covid 19 response strategy and policy. Thank you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc  UK Parliament – Health and Social Services Committee

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of recent litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court  in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health  alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19. 
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


168 Response

Awaiting reply


169 Enquiry

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

Date: 18  July  2021

Dear First Minister

Subject: Invalidity of RT-PCR testing process in Wales

In view of the scientific evidence now available, supported by recent court judgements, I was surprised to learn in media reports that Welsh Government intend to rely on RT-PCR and Lateral Flow test results to henceforth guide political decisions on economic lockdown in Wales from September 2021.

As you are aware, from scientific papers and court judgements previously drawn to your attention under separate cover, the RT-PCR test should not be used for the diagnosis of Covid 19 [an infection purportedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus] .The validity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 was challenged in an external peer review by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists, published 1 December 2020. Details of the review findings are attached hereto. [LINK].

You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded that the test should not be used for diagnosis of any viral infection. The review findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements.

Amplification Cycle [C t value] of 45 has been used in Wales, as confirmed by Public Health Wales, [this was originally recommended by WHO for use in European and USA laboratories]. This amplifies viral fragment 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false test results upon which political decisions regarding economic lockdown was based. Over-amplification of pieces of nucleotides inflates case numbers by the inclusion of healthy people. The SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was part-constructed using a computer model, hence the ongoing litigation.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been isolated, purified and sequenced and therefore does not conform to the gold standard for identifying a virus as set out in Koch’s Postulates. It is not possible therefore to establish whether the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate can not be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. The test can not detect new variants as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated. RT-PCR can NOT be used to detect viruses that have not been decoded [sequenced] beforehand. A complete decoding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, which is necessary in order to know what exactly is being replicated using RT-PCR, has never taken place. Moreover, there is no electron micrograph of a pure and fully characterized SARS-CoV-2 virus. Indirect detection procedures [RT-PCR and antibody tests] do not confirm the existence of a certain virus and they certainly do not deliver evidence of a disease-causing virus. It remains unclear why genomic sequencing is now being undertaken utilising the results from fraudulent RT-PCR tests.

Public officials, at national and local level, have made drastic public health emergency decisions, based upon faulty RT-PCR data. These decisions have impacted civil liberties, economic viability and educational systems, among other things. All restrictive measures undertaken by Welsh Government and Local Authorities are based on “coronavirus case numbers” generated by a fraudulent testing process, as now confirmed in court judgements. This has resulted in a false RT-PCR generated pandemic rather than a viral pandemic. Litigation is progressing nationally and globally to bring the perpetrators of the fraud to justice.

Information accompanying the Covid 19 RT-PCR test kits clearly states that the test may not only react to SARS-CoV-2 but also other viruses and even bacteria. Complete purification is an indispensable pre-requisite for virus identification. The primers used in the test are an infinitesimal fragment of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome made up of 18 to 24 bases [nucleotides] each, while the SARS-CoV-2 virus is assumed to consist of 30,000 bases i.e. the primers represent only 0.07%of the virus genome. As the viral genome was part-constructed by computer model the process is considered scientific fraud.

Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19 can provide you with a copy of the “Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR test. A chronology of recent litigation regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 is set out in Annex 1 below.

In view of the evidence, now presented, I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision to base political decisions on economic lockdown in Wales from September 2021 on the results of a fraudulent RT-PCR testing process.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc  Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament – Health and Social Care Committee

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of recent litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court  in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health  alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19. 
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


169 Response

Awaiting reply


170 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date: 23  July  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Covid 19 daily testing to avoid the need to self-isolate

The announcement by U K Government that Covid 19 daily testing will now be introduced to avoid certain workers having to self-isolate appears to conflict with the latest scientific evidence. Moreover, the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 has been endorsed in recent court judgements. Your attention is drawn to documentation, as listed below, attached hereto [LINK 1] [LINK 2] and included as Annex 1 below.

  1. External peer review of RT-PCR test.
  2. Weimar Court Judgement – 8 April 2021.
  3. Chronology of recent litigation regarding the RT-PCR test, as set out in Annex 1 below.

In view of the scientific evidence now presented regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19, endorsed in recent court judgements, I must request a review of the decision to continue using this test in the U K. The review to be undertaken either by the Cabinet Office or, possibly, in conjunction with an external review by U K Parliament Overview and Scrutiny Committees. I suggest the following “terms of reference” for the review in order to establish:

  • Whether the budget of £37 billion for Covid 19 test ad trace represents value for money.
  • Whether decisions taken by Cabinet Members regarding the testing process have been based on proper science.
  • Why recent court judgements regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 have not been taken into consideration by Cabinet Members to inform Covid response strategy and policy in England and by the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland..

The outcome of the review into the use of the RT-PCR test should inform the judge-led “independent public inquiry” planned for next year. Thank you

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

 

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   UK Parliament – Health and Social Services Committee
cc   UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee

Annex 1
RT-PCR test – Chronology of recent litigation

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court  in Germany ruled on the subject of the PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness. Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health  alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19. 
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


170 Response

Awaiting reply


171 Enquiry

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

Date: 1  August  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject:   Pfizer Vaccine roll-out – Vulnerable children aged 12 to 17

I attach abstract from Wales-Online dated 1 August 2021. [LINK]

The article confirms the decision by the D H S C to authorise emergency roll-out of the Pfizer Covid 19 gene-editing therapy [vaccine] to vulnerable children aged 12 to 17 years, including those with severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome, a suppressed immune system or severe learning disabilities. The decision conflicts with the findings of a Spanish Laboratory confirming the presence of a toxic substance [Graphene Oxide] in the Pfizer vaccine. A copy of the interim report entitled “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension – Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy” and video interview is available at the following links.

https://biggeesblog.cymru/PDF/Graphine-Oxide_detection_in_vial_of_Pfizer_vaccine_OFFICIAL_INTERIM_REPORT_IN_ENGLISH.pdf

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2TgQEq9efUoc/

In view of the conflicting information now available I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the evidence available to D H S C confirming the safety of the Pfizer Vaccine for emergency roll-out to vulnerable children aged 12 to 17 years.

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

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


171 Response

Awaiting reply


172 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
N H S – Wales

Date: 27  July  2021

Dear Team members

Subject:  Established Process for obtaining informed consent for vaccinations

I am advised by “Public Health Wales” that “N H S Wales” has a well established process in place for ensuring informed consent for vaccination programmes.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the current agreed process for informed consent. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


172 Response

Awaiting reply


173 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: 28  July  2021

Dear Dr Raine

Subject:  Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

Following recent analysis by a laboratory in Spain the presence of “Graphene Oxide” has been detected in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines] now being administered to the U K population. A copy of the interim report dated 28 June 2021 and video interview is available at the link below. The interim report [prior to release of final study report] is entitled “Graphene Oxide detection in Aqueous Suspension – Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy” by Professor Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid.

Interim Report
https://biggeesblog.cymru/PDF/Graphine-Oxide_detection_in_vial_of_Pfizer_vaccine_OFFICIAL_INTERIM_REPORT_IN_ENGLISH.pdf

Video Interview
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2TgQEq9efUoc/

Following publication of the interim report, I have received numerous requests for clarification from members of the public who are alarmed at the findings. Consequently, I would be grateful if you could respond to the following 4-point enquiry in point order.

  1. Why is “Graphene Oxide” not listed as an ingredient in Public Assessment Reports [PAR] published by M H R A ?
  2. What peer-reviewed scientific / medical studies are available to M H R A regarding the use of “Graphene Oxide” in gene-editing therapies ?
  3. What are the short, medium and long term health impacts for the U K population, including impacts on future fertility, on the use of “Graphene Oxide” in gene-editing therapies.
  4. What antidote [if any] is available for those that consider they were coerced into taking an experimental gene-editing therapy by safety assurances provided by M H R A, Government advertising and celebrity endorsements, but now wish to have the substance removed from their body ? Your attention is drawn to the “Nuremberg Code” regarding experimentation on human beings. A summary is provided in Annex 1 below.

I look forward to your reply at your earliest convenience so that I may respond to serious concerns drawn to my attention by members of the public. Thank you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   U K Parliament – Health and Social Services Committee

Annex 1
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 gene-editing treatments 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.

173 Response

Subject: RE: CSC 60769 C J 173: Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:18:15 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

There is no graphene oxide in any of the authorised vaccines, a list of excipients in each vaccine is available in the Information for Healthcare Professionals for that vaccine. These documents can be found at the following links:

Regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Regulatory approval of Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Regulatory approval of COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

Kind Regards

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 020 3080 6000


173b Enquiry (2)

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

Date: 5  August  2021

Dear Dr Raine

Subject:  Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

I refer to my letter to you dated 28 July. I am grateful to your “Customer Service Centre” for responding promptly on your behalf 4 August.

I am aware of the list of excipients provided to Healthcare Professionals.

The statement by M H R A that “there is no graphene oxide in any of the authorised vaccines” conflicts with the findings of the Spanish Laboratory. Consequently, I would be pleased to receive details of the outcome of any independent analysis of vaccine vials undertaken by M H R A: tasked with ensuring the safety of the UK population following the roll-out of these experimental gene-editing therapies [vaccines]. Thank you.   

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


173b Response

Subject: RE: C J 173: CSC 60769 : Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 11:19:37 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

All laboratories used in the production of all authorised vaccines have to provide certificates to show that they work in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice and have to provide proof of a recent inspection by a mutually recognised medicines authority.

Kind regards,

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000

gov.uk/mhra

Stay connected

For information on how the Agency uses your personal data and your data protection rights, please see our three centres’ Privacy Notices: MHRA, CPRD and NIBSC.


173c Enquiry (3)

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

Date: 5  August  2021

Dear Dr Raine

Subject: Concerns regarding the reported use of Graphene Oxide in experimental Covid 19 mRNA gene-editing therapies [vaccines]

I am grateful for the further clarification provided by your Customer Service Centre. I believe it is important to draw a distinction between “certificates” provided by vaccine manufacturers or proof of “inspection” by medicines authority, and an independent laboratory analysis of the content of vaccine vial by M H R A as medical regulator. 

Investigations remain ongoing. Please retain this information on your file. Thank you.   

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


173c Response

Awaiting reply


174 Enquiry

St George’s University Hospital
NHS Foundation Trust

Date: 3  August  2021

Dear Trial coordinator

Subject: Covid 19 Vaccines in Pregnancy [Preg-CoV] Trial- IRAS No. 30115

I refer to the above subject and attach “Participant Information Sheet V 4.0 dated 23 July 2021” [LINK]. Your attention is drawn to statements contained therein reproduced below.

Page 21
These are new vaccines, and there may be site effects that we are not yet aware of. Further information about vaccine safety is being actively gathered as the vaccines are being used in the UK and globally. You will be informed of any significant change in the vaccine safety profile.

Page 23
Sometimes during a trial, new information relevant to the trial becomes available. If this happens, we will tell you about it and discuss whether you want to, or should, continue in the trial. If you decide to continue to take part, you may be asked to sign an updated consent form. On receiving new information, we may consider it to be in your best interests to withdraw you from the trial. Your participation in the trial may also be stopped at any time by the trial doctor or the sponsor for other reasons.

The statements are highlighted in the Information Sheet for your convenience. The information provided has been superseded by the findings of a Spanish Laboratory confirming the presence of a toxic substance [Graphene Oxide] in the Pfizer vaccine. A copy of the interim report entitled “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension – Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy” and video interview is available at the following links.

https://biggeesblog.cymru/PDF/Graphine-Oxide_detection_in_vial_of_Pfizer_vaccine_OFFICIAL_INTERIM_REPORT_IN_ENGLISH.pdf

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2TgQEq9efUoc/

I would be grateful if you could arrange to undertake an urgent review of the decision to proceed with the “Preg-CoV Trial” given the findings of the Spanish Laboratory.

I look forward to the outcome of your review at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


174 Response

Awaiting reply


175 Enquiry

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

Date: 7  August  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

Subject:  Covid 19 Alert Level 0 Wales – FAQ updated 6 August 2021

I refer to the above subject and attach copy of FAQ updated 6 August 2021 [LINK]. Following concerns drawn to my attention, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004. Would you please provide:

  1. A copy of the scientific evidence available to Welsh Government that “coronavirus case numbers in Wales” represents “actual Covid 19 infections in Wales“. The information is required as the entire guidance document is based on that assumption. Latest scientific evidence, supported by recent court judgements, confirms that the RT-PCR test should not be used to diagnose viral infection.
  2. Details of the “booster vaccine” that is to be offered to the most vulnerable in Wales during the Autumn of 2021. Is this to be administered concurrently with seasonal influenza vaccine ?
  3. A copy of the advice to “Welsh Government” from the “Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation” confirming it is safe for the public to have a different vaccine for the second dose.
  4. A copy of the scientific evidence available to Welsh Government that prolonged wearing of face coverings is safe and does not lead to, or result in, hypoxia, hypercapnia or bacterial pneumonia.  

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


175 Response

Subject: FW: C J 175: Covid 19 Alert Level 0 Wales – FAQ updated 6 August 2021
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 12:40:24 +0000
From: Micaela.Woodhead@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Mr Jones

Please see a response to your request for information [LINK].

Kind Regards

Micaela Woodhead

Gweithlu a Busnes Corfforaethol/ Workforce and Corporate Business

Grŵp Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol/ Health and Social Services Group
Llywodraeth Cymru/Welsh Government


176 Enquiry

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

Date: 9  August  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

Subject:  Covid 19 risk assessments by hospitality industry in Wales – effective from 7 August 2021.

I refer to the above subject. The decision by the First Minister to lift Covid 19 restrictions in Wales with effect from Saturday 7 August 2021 [Alert level 0] but to require the hospitality industry in Wales to undertake their own Covid 19 risk assessments is causing considerable confusion. I have received numerous requests for clarification. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could provide the following information under the F O I Act 2000 / E I R 2004.

  1. Is it a legal requirement for the hospitality industry in Wales to undertake a Covid 19 risk assessment from 7 August 2021, or is this non-statutory guidance issued by Welsh Government.
  2. If it is a legal requirement, please refer me to the relevant statute / regulation.
  3. In undertaking a Covid 19 risk assessment what “criteria” are the hospitality industry in Wales required to take into consideration.

I am aware that the statutory timeframe for reply, under the F O I Act 2000, is 20 working days. However, in view of the considerable confusion following the announcement by the First Minister, and the legal minefield regarding the private sector undertaking Covid 19 risk assessments, a prompt reply and clarification would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


176 Response

Subject: C J 176: Covid 19 risk assessments by hospitality industry in Wales – effective from 7 August 2021.
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:28:14 +0000
From: Alyson.Evans@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru
CC: Freedomofinformation@gov.wales

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your email message of 9 August about Covid 19 risk assessments and hospitality industry.  I have been asked to reply.

Specifically you have asked:

  1. Is it a legal requirement for the hospitality industry in Wales to undertake a Covid 19 risk assessment from 7 August 2021, or is this non-statutory guidance issued by Welsh Government.

Yes, it is a legal requirement to undertake a risk assessment.

  1. If it is a legal requirement, please refer me to the relevant statute / regulation.

The regulation is regulation 16 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) Regulations 2020) and is available at the following link.

  1. In undertaking a Covid 19 risk assessment what “criteria” are the hospitality industry in Wales required to take into consideration.

Guidance for alert level zero is available at the following link.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks

Alyson

 

Alyson Burke

Head of Government Business: Culture, Sport and Tourism

Pennaeth Busnes Llywodraeth: Diwylliant, Chwaraeon a Thwristiaeth

Adran yr Economi, Sgiliau a Chyfoeth Naturiol/Department of Economy Skills & Natural Resources

Llywodraeth Cymru /Welsh Government

Ffon / Tel: 03000 256045

Ebost/email: alyson.burke@gov.wales


177 Enquiry

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

Date: 10  August  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Use of Graphene Oxide in water filtration

I refer to the use of “Graphene Oxide” in water filtration. Additional information regarding the process is available at the link below.

https://g2owatertech.com/

From a public health perspective, I would be grateful if you could provide me with the following information.

  1. The name of the regulator in England tasked with ensuring the safety of the potable water supply for public use, and
  2. The relevant statute and / or regulations in England relating to the safety of the potable water supply for public use.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


177 Response

Subject: Request response: Use of Graphene Oxide in water filtration (EIR2021/22662)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 08:59:01 +0100
From: Defra Information Rights Team <no-reply@defra.ecase.co.uk>
Reply-To: Defra Information Rights Team <informationrequests@defra.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the response to your request of 9th September for information on Use of Graphene Oxide in water filtration.

Yours sincerely

Information Rights Team

InformationRequests@defra.gov.uk


178 Enquiry

J C V I Secretariat
Public health England
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG

Date: 18  August  2021

Dear J C V I Secretariat

Subject: J C V I Annual Register of Members Interests

I attach copy of “Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation [J C V I] Code of Practice” [LINK] and refer specifically to paragraph 44 therein.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the latest version of “annual register of members’ interests”.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


178 Response

Subject: OFFICIAL: Case ref: 1191 – FOI – Annual Register of Members Interests (CF)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:16:12 +0000
From: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>
To: ‘Wynne Jones’ <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>

OFFICIAL

Dear Wynne Jones,

In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Act, Public Health England (PHE) can confirm that it does hold the information requested.

Clause 44 of the Code of practice states ‘the Secretariat will review and maintain a register of members’ relevant interests annually, publishing details as part of an annual report or similar routine progress update’. In accordance with a similar routine progress update, declarations of interest are recorded in the published minutes of JCVI meetings and are regularly updated.

Additionally, this accounts for clause 39 of the Code of practice too, as subsequent meeting minutes are updated with changes to the membership of the JCVI and members are asked to declare any changes to their interests with the minutes of each meeting reporting this information.

This is also confirmed on the JCVI webpage, any conflict of interests declared by members of JCVI are now published as an annex to the minutes of each JCVI meeting. The JCVI code of practice provides information on how conflicts of interest are managed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation#conflict-of-interests

 

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team

Public Accountability Unit

Public Health England


178 Response (2)

Subject: Your email to the UK Health Security Agency
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:17:45 +0000
From: Enquiries <Enquiries@ukhsa.gov.uk>
To: c-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email of 11 November that has been passed on to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) regarding an annual register of Members Interests.

In your email you have written:

For the avoidance of doubt, I would be grateful if the team could provide me with a copy of – or a link to – the minutes of the original JCVI meeting when members were first appointed.

I enclose a link to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) main page below which displays all the JCVI related documentation. On this page you can also find a link to the National Archive page, directing you to the previously used JCVI page when it was on the Department of Health website: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation

Appointments to the committee are made on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Department of Health and Social Care.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Ben
Enquiries OfficerParliamentary and Public Accountability Team (PPAT)UK Health Security AgencyEnquiries@ukhsa.gov.uk www.gov.uk/ukhsa  Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA

179 Enquiry

Customer Service Team
Customer Service Centre
Ceredigion County Council
Canolfan Rheidol
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
SY23 UE

Date: 18  August  2021

Dear Customer Service Team

Subject:   Covid 19 infection data provided to local media & “Gold Command” Status

I attach abstracts from Tivyside Advertiser dated 17 August 2021. I would be pleased to receive clarification regarding statements made by Ceredigion County Council to the local media relating to Covid 19 infection rates, and status of “Gold Command”.

I would be grateful if you could provide me with the following information / clarification..

  1. Reference is made to a “cluster of Covid 19 cases” identified in and around the villages of New Quay and Llanarth. Is this a reference to a cluster of “coronavirus cases, following positive RT-PCR or Lateral Flow antibody test result” or is this a reference to a cluster of “actual Covid 19 infections“. There is an obvious difference.
  2. Reference is made to delegated powers provided to “Gold Command”. I would be pleased to receive a copy of the original Council minute transferring delegated powers to “Gold Command” regarding Covid-related decisions in Ceredigion.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


179 Response

Awaiting reply


180 Enquiry

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

Date: 22  August  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Coronavirus [Covid 19] – Antibody testing

I refer to the above subject and attach guidance [LINK] published by DHSC on GOV.UK website 22 August. I note that different types of coronavirus antibody tests are available. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

I would be pleased to receive technical information regarding the antibody test kits that are now to be used in the UK.  A “Product Information Sheet” provided by the antibody test kit manufacturer will suffice if no other technical information is held by the DHSC. Thank  you.  

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


180 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1359361
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:38:55 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref:FOI-1359361). Apologies for the delay.

Yours sincerely, 

Michael Pierson
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care

————————————————————

Please do not reply to this email. To contact the Department of Health and Social Care, please visit www.gov.uk/dhsc

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Any views expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care. Please note: Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications.

181 Enquiry

Gordon Ashworth
Director, Consumer Protection
Competition and Markets Authority [CMA]
The Cabot
25 Cabot Square
London
E14 4QZ
United Kingdom

Date: 26  August  2021

Dear Mr Ashworth

Subject:   PCR Covid 19 Test Providers – harmful practices

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

  1. CMA press release dated 25 August, [LINK] and
  2. Your open letter to PCR test providers, also dated 25 August [LINK]

I am pleased to note that the CMA is continuing to investigate the information and complaints it has received to determine whether appropriate enforcement action should be taken against particular PCR test providers. I further note, from your open letter, that “all contract terms and notices musty be transparent. Not only must PCR test providers use easy-to-understand, legible and plain English but the wording used must allow consumers to make informed choices.”  
 
The general public are not able to make informed choices as they are not being informed that the PCR test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. The CMA needs to be aware of the latest scientific evidence regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection. Supporting evidence is attached: this being an external peer review undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published 1 December 2020. You will note that, for the reasons stated, 10 major scientific flaws were found at molecular and methodological level with the review concluding that the test should not be used to diagnose viral infection. This prompted litigation in various countries. Review findings have been  endorsed in recent court judgements. A chronological overview of recent litigation is set out in Annex 1 below. 

Public Health Wales has confirmed that amplification cycle [C t] value of 45 has been used in tests undertaken in Wales. This amplifies the fragment of live [or dead] genetic material 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false results. At C t 45 the healthy population in Wales will test positive.   The RT-PCR test is not testing for the “virus”. It cannot be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between live and dead fragments of genetic material.There is no “gold standard” control data to show that the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate cannot be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. Variants cannot be detected as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated.

I would be grateful if the CMA could take this important information into consideration in your ongoing investigation. If your 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)

Annex 1
Chronology of recent litigation regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test to diagnose viral infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled prohibiting two Weimar schools with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially “qualified” masks such as FFP2 masks); it further prohibited the schools from demanding compliance with AHA minimum distance-keeping; and also prohibited them from demanding that pupils undergo SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the Court ruled that classroom instruction must be face-to-face [i.e. not remote].
On the subject of the PCR test, the Court writes: “The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein has already pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness.
Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3] Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
25 November 2020
First lawsuit in a multi-lawsuit strategy filed in Germany. Fact checkers are being sued regarding validity of RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus. Dr Reimer Fuellmich working with the “Coronavirus Investigation Committee” in Germany. Cases also filed in U S Courts as they have better separation between the legislature and the legal system than courts in Europe.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


181 Response

Awaiting reply


182 Enquiry

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

Date: 28  August  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

Subject:  £7.2 million gift of Personal Protective Equipment [P P E] from Wales to Namibia Africa

I refer to the above subject as explained in attached press release [LINK] dated 26 August. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000 / EIR 2004.

  1. A copy of the information provided by officials to Welsh Government Ministers confirming that the £7.2 million gift of Personal Protective Equipment from Wales to Namibia Africa is surplus to NHS Wales’ requirements, and
  2. Copy of the technical specification of the 1.1 million face masks to be provided to Namibia Africa.

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

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


182 Response

Subject: ATISN 15469 – Response Letter
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:47:44 +0000
From: HSSBriefingsandMeeting@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

 

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached response letter towards your request of 28 August. [LINK], [LINK]

Yours sincerely,

 

Joseph Cameron Beese

Busnes Llywodraetha Corfforaethol/ Government and Corporate Business

Grwp Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol/ Health and Social Services Group

Llywodraeth Cymru/Welsh Government

 


183 Enquiry

J C V I Secretariat
Public health England
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG

Date: 29  August  2021

Dear J C V I Secretariat

Subject:  Covid 19 RT-PCR test data presented to J C V I

I refer to the above subject. I note from details provided in minutes of J C V I meetings, available at the link below, that committee members have based their assessments on Covid 19 RT-PCR test results.

https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc

As you are no doubt aware, the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection was confirmed in an external peer review undertaken by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published 1 December 2020 [LINK]. Ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found with the review concluding that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. Additional scientific information is provided in attached document. The review findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements. A chronological overview of recent litigation on the subject is set out in Annex 1 below. Consequently, to inform ongoing investigations, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide the following information under the “Freedom of Information Act 2000”.

I would be pleased to receive confirmation of the “date” the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection was drawn to the attention of J C V I members to inform their assessments.

The information is requested as it is not recorded in minutes of J C V I meetings. I look forward to receiving the information at your convenience. 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 1
Chronology of recent litigation regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test to diagnose viral infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled prohibiting two Weimar schools with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially “qualified” masks such as FFP2 masks); it further prohibited the schools from demanding compliance with AHA minimum distance-keeping; and also prohibited them from demanding that pupils undergo SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the Court ruled that classroom instruction must be face-to-face [i.e. not remote].
On the subject of the PCR test, the Court writes: “The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein has already pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021
The Vienna Administrative Court judgment VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what it considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognized experts, studies and the World Health Organization, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a PCR test for Covid-19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The PCR test is destroyed as a credible determinant of Covid illness.
Antigen tests are also deemed not credible. Certified medical doctors alone are able to determine specific cases of illness. The Vienna Administrative Court examined closely the basis for the Austrian federal government’s policy and found that definition of illness from the Ministry of Health alone is completely wrong and baseless. Confirmed Covid 19 “case” is defined 23 December 2020 as:
1]             Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acid [PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]             Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]             Any person, with detection of SARS-CoV specific antigen, who fulfils the epidemiological criteria.
None of the three “confirmed cases” defined by the Minister of Health meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation [WHO] term “ill / infected person.” The sole reliance on the PCR test (confirmed case 1) is rejected by the WHO. The Health Service of the City of Vienna uses the words “case numbers,” “test results,” “case incidence,” as well as “number of infections.” This jumbling of terms does not do justice to a scientific assessment of the epidemic situation. For the WHO, the decisive factor is the number of infections / illnesses and not the number of people tested positive or other “case numbers”. This is similar to a ruling made by a Portuguese appeals court in November 2020 that the tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based on test result. The verdict can still be appealed to the Constitutional Court or an extraordinary appeal can be filed with the Administrative Court.
 
15 December 2020
“Cease and Desist” papers served on Dr Christian Drosten regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests, by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of 34 lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.
 
25 November 2020
First lawsuit in a multi-lawsuit strategy filed in Germany. Fact checkers are being sued regarding validity of RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus. Dr Reimer Fuellmich working with the “Coronavirus Investigation Committee” in Germany. Cases also filed in U S Courts as they have better separation between the legislature and the legal system than courts in Europe.
 
11 November 2020
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the RT-PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2 (the purported cause of the Covid-19 disease [which has not been isolated or identified with a compiled genome available], and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


183 Response

Subject: OFFICIAL: Case ref: 1213 – C J 183: Covid 19 RT-PCR test data presented to J C V I (LD)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:49:39 +0000
From: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: FOI <FOI@phe.gov.uk>

 

OFFICIAL

Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] Public Health England’s response to your request.

FOI Team

Public Accountability Unit

Public Health England

foi@phe.gov.uk

www.gov.uk/phe   Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk


184 Enquiry

LGFR.Consultations@gov.wales
Welsh Government
5th Floor Ty Hywel
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1NA

Date: 31  August  2021

Dear  LGFR Consultation team

Subject: Regulatory Impact Assessment [R I A] for Rating [Wales] [Coronavirus] Regulations 2021

I refer to the above subject and attach the following documentation received 31 August 2021.

  • Consultation document [LINK]
  • Draft Regulations [LINK]

To enable me to comment on your proposals by the consultation end date of 27 September 2021, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the following documentation.

I would be pleased to receive a copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment [R I A] undertaken by Welsh Government to inform the Rating [Wales] [Coronavirus] Regulations 2021.

I look forward to receiving a copy of the document at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


184 Response

Awaiting reply


185 Enquiry

Privacy Transparency and Ethics Team
NHS Digital
7 and 8 Wellington Place
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS1 4AP

Date: 31  August  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Covid Pass for entry to place of work or social event

I refer to the above subject. An abstract from guidance on how organisers of social events and employers should validate customer’s “Covid pass” for access to social events and place of work is reproduced below in Annex 1.

Given that event operators and private employers will be processing personal / medical information, I would be grateful if you could further clarify the requirements to ensure compliance with the provisions of the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Specifically, are event operators and private employers required to register as “data controllers” with the Information Commissioner’s Office and pay the registration fee, or are they classified as “data processors” under contact to NHS Digital.

I look forward to receiving clarification so that I may respond to enquiries received from event organisers and private employers. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex 1
“How to validate your customer’s COVID Pass
It is recommended that organisers cross-check the identity of the person displaying their COVID Pass status with other forms of identification (for example name of person on the ticket or driving license).
We have also implemented a number of measures which help events or venues validate and authenticate the COVID Pass information presented to them:

  • The shimmering effect on the COVID Pass screen within the NHS App helps reduce the risk of fraud as it demonstrates to the checker they are looking at an active app, not just a photo or screenshot shared by someone else.
  • PDF documents downloaded from the NHS App contain a machine readable 2D barcode which protects against fraud. The details encoded inside the barcode cannot be edited so would no longer align if the PDF were to be doctored or tampered with.
  • COVID Pass letters ordered via the NHS 119 service are printed with microtext, thermochromic ink and other features to prevent copying, and a barcode (a unique reference that can be used to verify an individual’s COVID vaccination record).

Organisers may also choose to use the NHS COVID Pass Verifier app to validate their customer’s COVID status. The Verifier app enables venues to safely validate a customer’s COVID-19 status by scanning the 2D barcode presented on the NHS App or the PDF download. Further information on the Verifier app can be found on the Using the NHS COVID Pass page.”


185 Response

Awaiting reply


186 Enquiry

Well Healthcare Services
Customer Care Team
Merchant Warehouse
21 Castle Street
Manchester
M3 4LZ

Date: 4  September  2021

Dear Customer Care Team

Subject:  Covid 19 P C R home test kits

I note, from information available on your website at the link below, that “Well Healthcare Services” is offering Covid 19 P C R home test kits for sale in association with “Randox Health”. 

https://www.well.co.uk/coronavirus-testing/home-test-kit

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the technical Product Information Sheet [P I S] for the P C R test. This is a technical document / specification normally available from the manufacturer of the P C R equipment.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


186 Response

Awaiting reply


187 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
M H R A
10 South Colonnade
London
E14 4PU

Date: 16  September  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: CoV Boost Study – Request for Information

I refer to the above subject. The “CoV Boost Clinical Trial” was approved by MHRA in a letter dated 17 May 2021 under reference CTA 11709/0279/001-0001.

As roll-out of the Covid 19 booster inoculations has now been approved by UK Government for the Autumn of 2021, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information under the FOI Act 2000.

I would be pleased to receive a copy of the CoV Boost study findings submitted to, and approved by, the MHRA as medical regulator tasked with ensuring the safety of the booster vaccination programme.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


187 Response

Subject: RE: FOI 21/1087 CSC 68691 CJ 187 – CoV Boost Study – Request for Information
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:45:52 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your request dated 27th September where you requested “a copy of the CoV Boost study findings.”

Unfortunately, the information is exempt from release under Section 22 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act:

Section 22 – Information intended for future publication: the information you have requested is due to be published. Section 22 is a qualified exemption, which means that we have considered whether the public interest in releasing the information is outweighed by the public interest in not giving the information. In favour of disclosure, we consider that there is a general public benefit from   seeing this data. However, we consider that the public interest will be better served by not releasing the information until it is in its complete form.

We intend to publish an annex to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for the authorised vaccines in the near future to include information on the authorisation of the third dose.

If you disagree with how we have interpreted the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in answering your request, you can ask for an internal review. Please reply to this email, within two months of this reply, specifying that you would like an Internal Review to be carried out.

 

Kind regards,

 

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 020 3080 6000


188 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Date: 18  September  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: Covid Passport for events and nightclubs in Wales

I refer to the above subject and attach Press Release, dated 17 September, issued by Welsh Government. [LINK]

I note that, with effect from 11 October 2021, there will be a requirement for those in Wales over 18 years of age to show an NHS Covid Passport to enter the following venues:

Nightclubs
Indoor, non-seated events for more than 500 people, such as concerts or conventions
Outdoor non-seated events for more than 4000 people
Any setting or event with more than 10,000 people in attendance

Following the announcement by the First Minister, I have received numerous requests for clarification from venue owners / operators. To enable me to respond I would be grateful if you could further clarify the requirements, with specific reference to the following enquiries.

  1. From 11 October 2021 venue owners / operators will be required to harvest personal / medical data. Consequently, are they required to register with the Information Commissioner’s Office as “data controllers” or are they considered to be “data processors“, pursuant to UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.
  2. I would be grateful if you could provide me with a copy of – or a link to – the new regulations relating to “Covid Passports in Wales” so that I can establish how the regulations are to be administered and enforced. This will enable me to advise venue owners / operators on the subject. 

Your prompt reply would be appreciated in view of the requirement for venue owners / operators to implement the changes from 11 October 2021. Thank you.  
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


188 Response

Subject: RE: You have been forwarded an enquiry from the First Point of Contact Centre. Ref:04331203
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:13:29 +0000
From: CovidStatusCertificates@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru
CC: CustomerHelp@gov.wales, CovidStatusCertificates@gov.wales

Thank you for your query concerning the covid pass.

As requested, please find attached a link to the legislation that will govern implementation of the covid pass in Wales. These have not been passed by the Senedd yet – the vote and debate on the legislation will take place on the 5 October.

https://senedd.wales/media/wrphb1az/sub-ld14562-e.pdf

I can confirm that business owners will not be required to have access to medical data and will not need to store any personal information about individuals entering a premises or event. The covid pass (which is already available) will only show an individual’s name, and whether the covid pass is valid – it will not include confirmation of how they are eligible, nor will businesses be required to store any information. If individuals do not have a covid pass, they will be able to provide evidence (in the form of a text or email) that they have had a negative lateral flow test 48 hours before entry – there is no need for businesses or events to take or record any information from these individuals either.

Guidance to businesses will be published shortly confirming these arrangements.

I hope this provide re-assurance

 

Chris


189 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Hywel Dda University Health Board
Corporate Offices
Ystwyth Building
St David’s Park
Job’s Well Road
Carmarthen
Carmarthenshire
SA31 3BB

Date: 18  September  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Primary Care [Moderna Vaccine Covid 19 Immunisation Scheme] Directions 2021

I attach copy of “Primary Care [Moderna Vaccine Covid 19 Immunisation Scheme] Directions 2021”.[LINK]

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the blank template used to record informed consent provided by Moderna vaccine recipients in accordance with the requirements as set out in P C C I S Specification 8 j i. The relevant text is highlighted for your convenience. I stress, there is no need to provide any personal data: a copy of the blank template used will suffice.

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

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


189 Response

Subject: FOI6947
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:09:38 +0000
From: FOI HywelDda (Hywel Dda UHB – Freedom of Information) <FOI.HywelDda@wales.nhs.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Annwyl/Dear Wynne,

Amgaewch ein hymateb i’ch cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth.

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Diolch/Thank you,

 

Hannah Jones.

 

Corporate Information Officer/Swyddog Gwybodaeth Corfforaethol

Rhif Ffôn / Telephone Number: 01267 239654(WHTN 01825 4654)

E-bost/ Email: Hannah.jones33@wales.nhs.uk


189 Response (2)

Subject: CEO.7155 – Response
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:33:45 +0000
From: Corporate Correspondence (Hywel Dda UHB – Generic Account) <Generic.Account22e8c0@wales.nhs.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne

Please find attached [LINK] a response issued on behalf of Steve Moore.

Regards

Katie Jenner

Senior Corporate Information Officer/Uwch Swyddog Gwybodaeth Corfforaethol

Hywel Dda University Health Board/Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Hywel Dda

Corporate Offices

Ystwyth Building/Adeilad Ystwyth

Hafan Derwen

St David’s Park/Parc Dewi Sant

Job’s Well Road/Fynnon Job

Carmarthen/Caerfyrddin

Carmarthenshire/Sir Gaerfyrddin

SA31 3BB

 

Rhif Ffôn / Telephone Number: 01267 239730 (WHTN 01825 4730)

E-bost: Email: katie.jenner@wales.nhs.uk

 

Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Hywel Dda yw enw gweithredol Bwrdd Iechyd Lleol Hywel Dda / Hywel Dda University Health Board is the operational name of Hywel Dda Local Health Board


189 Response (3)

Subject: FOI7234
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 16:11:37 +0000
From: FOI HywelDda (Hywel Dda UHB – Freedom of Information) <FOI.HywelDda@wales.nhs.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Final response from Hywel Dda Local Health Board :

Annwyl/Dear Wynne,

Amgaewch ein hymateb i’ch cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth.

Please find attached [LINK] our response to your Freedom of Information request.

Diolch/Thank you,

 

Hannah Jones.

 

Corporate Information Officer/Swyddog Gwybodaeth Corfforaethol

I’m currently working from home and therefore only contactable by email

E-bost/ Email: Hannah.jones33@wales.nhs.uk


 

190 Enquiry

Dr Frank Atherton
Chief Medical Officer [Wales]
Population Health Directorate
Cathays Park
CF10 3NQ

Date: 20  September  2021

Dear Dr Atherton

Subject:  Influenza Vaccines for the 2021 / 22 season

I refer to the above subject and write to withdraw my previous request for information dated 19 September, as set out in my previous letter. Following an internet search I have managed to obtain a copy “Welsh Health Circular” [W H C {2021} 019] issued 4 August 2021. A copy is attached hereto. [LINK]

I note co-administration of experimental Covid 19 inoculations and influenza vaccines is encouraged in Wales. As you are no doubt aware, the experimental Covid 19 inoculations have not been approved for use in the human population and serious adverse reactions and deaths are currently recorded on MHRA “yellow card” monitoring system. A summary of the latest data available is set out in Annex 1 below. These inoculations have been granted temporary emergency authorisation under R.174 of Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

In view of the decision to co-administer these inoculations with influenza vaccines I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

  1. The technical specification [with full list of ingredients] of experimental Covid 19 inoculations to be use in Wales, co-administered with influenza vaccine.
  2. The technical specification [with full list of ingredients] of the “nasal spray influenza vaccine” to be offered to children in Wales.
  3. The technical specification [with full list of ingredients] of the influenza vaccines for the 2021 / 22 season, as listed below.

Adults
aQIV – adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine
QIVc – quadrivalent cell-culture influenza vaccine
QIVr – quadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccine
QIVe – quadrivalent influenza egg-culture vaccine

Children age 2 to 17 years
LAIV – quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine – porcine gelatine content. Administered as nasal spray

Children under 2 years of age
QIVe – quadrivalent influenza egg-culture vaccine

I would be grateful if you could process my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. 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 1
Data to 1 September 2021 – from UK Government MHRA “yellow card” reporting system
AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 820,916 – total deaths 1,057
Moderna – total adverse reactions 47,977 – total deaths 16
Pfizer- total adverse reactions 314,700 – total deaths 524
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 3,244 – total deaths 28
Total – adverse reactions 1,186,837 – total deaths 1,625
It is estimated that, for various reasons, only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. The information provided above can therefore be adjusted accordingly.


190 Response

Subject: Freedom of Information Request: ATISN 15660 – Combined Flu and Covid19 Inoculations
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:13:38 +0000
From: HSSBriefingsandMeeting@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Mr Jones

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.  I have attached our response letter [LINK] relating to your recent Freedom of Information request.

Kind regards

Jeanette

Jeanette Warren

Government Business Manager

Tîm Business Llywodraeth a Corfforaethol / Government and Corporate Business Team

Gweithlu a Busnes Corfforaethol / Workforce and Corporate Business 

Cysylltwch gyda fi ar Teams!  Chat with me on Teams!


191 Enquiry

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

Date: 21  September  2021

Dear Customer Service Team

Subject: Project Smart Safety Surveillance [Project 3-S]

I refer to the above subject and attach copy of MHRA Press Release dated 15 December 2017 [LINK] setting out details of a 3-year partnership [MHRA / BMGF / WHO] to improve the safety monitoring of medicines in low and middle-income countries.

I would be pleased to receive further, more detailed, information regarding Project 3-S at your convenience; specifically, the regulatory expertise provided by MHRA and the findings of the 3 pilot exercises in different low and middle-income settings. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


191 Response

Subject: CSC 67927 C J 191 – Project Smart Safety Surveillance [Project 3-S]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:48:54 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your recent correspondence requesting further, more detailed, information regarding Project 3-S, and specifically, “the regulatory expertise provided by MHRA and the findings of the 3 pilot exercises in different low and middle-income settings”.

The press release attached in your email, announcing the MHRA’s partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the Project Smart Safety Surveillance (Project 3S) mentions that MHRA’s role in the project was to help develop scientific and regulatory expertise.

When a new medicine or vaccine is used in a large population in a short timeframe it is essential that safety information is gathered quickly to ensure the success of the product launch. New medicines and vaccines are much needed to treat and prevent disease, and this is particularly important in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Increasingly, new medicines or vaccines are used for the first time in such settings. The ability to gather safety data in order to address uncertainties around benefit risk is less well established. The partnership between the MHRA, BMGF and WHO aimed to help understand potential risks of medicines and how the national regulatory agencies can mitigate these by having systems and requirements for pharmacovigilance e.g. tools such as risk management plans, post authorisation safety studies etc. The project looked at what systems are in place and examine what regulatory framework existed in relation to pharmacovigilance in LMICs. The 3S project aimed to help strengthen these pharmacovigilance regulatory systems and to use these new and enhanced capabilities for monitoring the safety of medicines and vaccines.

The concept of the 3S project was to extensively improve the safety monitoring of medicines and vaccines in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the MHRA worked in partnership to help try to build a sustainable pharmacovigilance system in these countries. The project’s goal was to support safe introduction of new medicines and vaccines, whilst enabling the effective management by the national regulatory agencies of the pharmacovigilance system end-to-end. The main focus was to optimise the regulatory framework for pharmacovigilance at a national or regional level and support the development of the Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) system and signal management, risk management planning, critical benefit/risk assessment and risk communication capabilities, underpinned with a quality management system for pharmacovigilance. An effective pharmacovigilance system requires a robust regulatory framework to ensure all stakeholders (regulator, manufacturer, healthcare professional, patient) understand their role and how to support/comply with regulations.

Working collaboratively with WHO, as technical partners the MHRA supported the 3S project workplans with regulatory and pharmacovigilance expertise to develop ongoing capacity building work. The key support provided by the MHRA has been training, workshops, sharing and helping with preparation of training materials, study visits, direct support in implementing new IT technologies, tools and support for quality pharmacovigilance systems, infrastructure and capacity for data analysis and decision making.

Five key areas of activity were identified, which the MHRA worked alongside with WHO and other partners, to help deliver the project objectives, which are detailed below:

  1. Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reporting systems – health professionals and patients would have knowledge about the importance of ADR reporting and the means by which reporting can take place (web-based and mobile reporting tools). LMIC’s will be able to apply learnings from training(s) received in ADR coding practices, drug dictionary maintenance, and storage and transmission of cases. As well as understanding how different systems may be used to benefit the LMICs practice.
  2. Signal detection process – LMIC’s to gain an understanding of active surveillance and the detection of safety issues from national, regional and global datasets.
  3. Benefit risk data appraisal and risk management assessment – LMIC’s to gain an understanding of signal review, marketing authorisation holders dossiers (e.g. risk management plans, periodic safety update reports, and study protocols), expert/peer review, registries, and competence in setting-appropriate benefit risk assessment.
  4. Regulatory decision making – LMIC’s to strengthen the skills to optimise regulatory decision making based upon the critical benefit risk assessments, including understanding of relevant tools and options available to regulators for risk management; requirements for variations, patient education materials, or post authorization studies by the manufacturer, depending on the regulatory framework.
  5. Risk benefit communication – LMIC’s to be able to communicate risks effectively and utilise the skills and tools developed to provide health professionals and patients with advice on drug safety issues and the monitoring of effectiveness of risk minimization, in a timely and relevant manner.

As mentioned in the press release which you refer to, there were three pilot exercises, which involved Armenia, Ethiopia, India and Thailand. Below is a short summary of each pilot:

  • Pilot 1: Bedaquiline – which is used in the treatment of Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). This was piloted in four countries: Armenia, Ethiopia, Peru, Brazil
  • Pilot 2: Rotavirus vaccines – which is a vaccine used to protect against rotavirus infections, which are the leading cause of severe diarrhoea among young children. This was piloted in India.
  • Pilot 3: Tafenoquine – is an oral medication used to prevent and to treat malaria. This was piloted in Thailand, Ethiopia, Peru, Brazil

The final report [LINK] looking at these pilots, which was led by WHO has now been published, as a research article in Drug Safety, the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP), titled Smart Safety Surveillance (3S): Multi-Country Experience of Implementing the 3S Concepts and Principles details the findings of the report.

The report saw an increase in ADR reporting, which was demonstrated in Armenia (bedaquiline), Brazil (TB and malaria medicines), India (rotavirus vaccine) and Ethiopia (TB medicines). They also saw ADR reports improve in quality for Brazil (TB), Peru (malaria), Thailand (malaria) and India (immunization). Ethiopia and India demonstrated an increased capacity for signal detection and signal evaluation. Armenia, Brazil, Peru and Thailand showed increased capacity to assess risk management plans following the implementation of 3S principles.

The report concluded that the 3S concept demonstrated success in different ways across the six countries where the pilots were carried out. Activities focused on three products for a proof of concept of the 3S principles, with the expectation that the project impact will be sustained through strengthened systems, to guide pharmacovigilance activities of other products in the future. It is important to continue monitoring the countries to understand if the gains and successes of the current 3S project are sustainable.

I hope you find this information useful.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ella

MHRA Customer Service Centre

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU

Telephone 0203 080 6000

gov.uk/mhra


192 Enquiry

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

Date: 28  September  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Protocol for disclosing conflict of interest – Senior medical / scientific advisors to DHSC

I refer to the above subject and attach letter dated 3 September 2021 from Cabinet Office [LINK].

You will note that I have been redirected to DHSC as information, previously requested, is only “partially held” by Cabinet Office. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information at your convenience.

I would be pleased to receive details of regulations and / or guidance currently in place at DHSC setting out the requirements for senior medical / scientific advisors to declare any conflict of interest.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


192 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1364455
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 08:46:32 +0000
From: Department of Health and Social Care <DoNotReply@dhsc.gov.uk>
To: Jones, Wynne <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref: FOI-1364455).

Yours sincerely, 

Charlotte Chow
Freedom of Information Team
Department of Health and Social Care


193 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Date: 30  September  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: Request for voluntary Regulatory Impact Assessment [RIA]

I refer to subordinate legislation: “The Health Protection [Coronavirus Restrictions][No. 5][Wales][Amendment][No. 17] Regulations 2021“. The Senedd debate and vote on this subordinate legislation relating to the introduction of Covid passports in Wales will take place 5 October 2021

I write to request that Welsh Government give urgent consideration to undertaking a “Voluntary R I A” in accordance with clause 3.3 of “The Welsh Ministers’ Regulatory Impact Assessment Code for Subordinate Legislation” laid before Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament on 29 June 2021. Justification for my request is set out below.

There are flaws in the subordinate legislation, as drafted. Qualifying Test is defined in the legislation as a test if it is capable of detecting the presence of coronavirus and is a RT-PCR test, or lateral flow test. Latest scientific evidence, endorsed in recent court judgements, confirms that the RT-PCR test is not fit for purpose. The RT-PCR test is not testing for the “virus”. It cannot be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between live and dead fragments of genetic material.There is no “gold standard” control data to show that the test has adequate specificity and sensitivity. The true false positive or false negative rate cannot be calculated because there is no control data to compare it to. Variants cannot be detected as the test would need to be re-designed / recalibrated. Additionally, amplification cycle threshold [C t] of 45 has been used in Wales as confirmed by “Public Health Wales”. This amplifies the fragment of genetic material 35,184,372,088,832 [35,184 billion] times, hence the false results. The invalidity of the test has been confirmed in peer review by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published 1 December 2020. A copy is attached hereto. You will note that ten major scientific flaws at molecular and methodological level were found. The review concluded that the test should not be used for diagnosis of viral infection. Recent court judgements have confirmed the invalidity of the test. Lawsuits have been filed in various countries with judgements either delivered or pending. Please refer to Annex 1 below for a brief chronology of recent litigation on this subject. The test is virtually 100% inaccurate at the C t cycle threshold used in Wales. A positive test result is not a “case” of Covid 19 infection as the general public have been led to believe, in the medical data / statistics presented. Moreover, the test has been inappropriately used since the HIV / AIDS era. The inventor of the RT-PCR technology, Dr. Kary Mullis, was extremely enraged and vocal at the time insisting that the test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. All test kits contain a warning notice confirming the test should not be used for diagnosis of viral infection. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 virus was part-constructed using a computer model: the genome has not been fully sequenced anywhere in the world [including China]. A computer model was used to fill gaps in the genome. The RT-PCR technology, designed by Dr Kary Mullis, was adopted for the purpose of detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus by Dr Christian Drosden. “Cease and Desist” papers were served on Dr Drosten 15 December 2020 regarding the fraudulent content of the “Corman – Drosten paper” on RT-PCR tests. Legal papers were served by Dr Reiner Fuellmich [Dr in Law] who leads a team of international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19. The evidence, now available, suggests that totally misleading statistics have been presented to the public from the outset relating to number of coronavirus cases and deaths from Covid 19 infection. There is no agreed definition on what constitutes a “case”. Through the use of the fraudulent RT-PCR test, the healthy population have been included to dramatically inflate “case” numbers to justify the roll-out of an experimental unlicensed gene-editing therapy [incorrectly referred to as a vaccine] that will generate billions in profits for pharmaceutical companies.

A R I A is considered necessary to examine the issues raised and to take into consideration the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 infection. It is considered that the subordinate legislation, as currently drafted, cannot be enforced in Wales due to the invalidity of the test. 

I look forward to your response to my request, at your earliest convenience, for a “Voluntary R I A” to be prepared and laid before Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament. Thank you.     

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex 1
Chronology of recent litigation regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test to diagnose viral infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled prohibiting two Weimar schools with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially “qualified” masks such as FFP2 masks); it further prohibited the schools from demanding compliance with AHA minimum distance-keeping; and also prohibited them from demanding that pupils undergo SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the Court ruled that classroom instruction must be face-to-face [i.e. not remote].
On the subject of the PCR test, the Court writes: “The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein has already pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction). The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.
 
24 March 2021