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 3]

A Running Journal of Written Correspondence [Volume 3]

To View VOLUME – 1 [Index Nos. 01 – 100]To View VOLUME – 2 [Index Nos. 101 – 200]


Below is Volume 3 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: March 12th 2022

 


 INDEX No.

 Click on Index Number below to go to content

CORRESPONDENCE   SUBJECT/   TITLE

 

22

To: Information Compliance Team, University Offices, University of Oxford, Wellington Square, Oxford.

Subject: Panoramic Study Covid 19 Antiviral treatments

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

Subject: Authorisation of special use of SARS-CoV-2 end-point RT-PCR Diagnostic Test System

218 To:  Freedom of Information Officer, Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.
Subject: Fast Track Pathway Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare
217 To:  Customer Contact Centre, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff.

Subject: Welsh Government vaccination information leaflet by post

216 To:  Information Rights Team, UK Health Security Agency [UKHSA], Wellington House,
133-155 Waterloo Road, London.
Subject: Myocarditis and Pericarditis following Covid 19 vaccination
215 To:  Correspondence Team, Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall, London.

Subject: Open letter from “PJH Law” to “National Health Service” dated 3 December 2021

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

Subject: New Covid 19 vaccination contract with Pfizer / BioNTech and Moderna

 

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

Subject: Fast Track Pathway Tool

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

Subject: Validation process for Covid 19 test kits in the private market

211 To:  Freedom of Information Team, City and County of Swansea, Civic Centre, Oystermouth Road, Swansea.

Subject: Cinema & Co Castle Street Swansea – Closure Order under Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984

210 To: Freedom of Information Team, Canolfan Rheidol, Rhodfa Padarn, Llanbadarn Fawr,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion.
Subject: New temporary road layout at Cardigan, Aberaeron, New Quay and Aberystwyth
209 To:  Expert Committee Support Team, Commission on Human Medicines [CHM], 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London.

Subject: Commission on Human Medicines – Minutes of meetings: Expert Working Groups

208 To:  Freedom of Information Team, UK Health Security Agency, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London.

Subject: Scientific evidence regarding the isolation, purification and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 virus

207 To: David Lewis (Tesco Customer Services CEO), Ken Murphy (Tesco CEO), Tesco House, Shire Park, Kestrel Way, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 1GA

Subject: Tesco Christmas Advertising – Covid 19 Passport

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

Subject: Covid Pill Lagevrio

205 To: Maria Battle, Chair – Hywel Dda University Health Board [H D U H B], Corporate Offices, Ystwyth Building, St David’s Park, Job’s Well Road, Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire.

Subject: Suspension of visitors to all hospitals in H D U H B area

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

Subject: Contract Award Notice 2020 / S207-506291 – AI Software package and information system

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

Subject: Covid passes extended to Cinemas, theatres and concert halls from 15 November 2021

202 To: Customer Contact Team, Welsh Parliament, Cardiff Bay, CF99 1SN.

Subject: Letter dated 28 October 2021 to Public Accounts Committee House of Commons London

201 To: Richard Cooke, Clerk – Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons, London.

Subject: PAC Report – Test and Trace Update


201 Enquiry

Richard Cooke
Clerk – Public Accounts Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Date: 28  October  2021

Dear Richard Cooke

Subject: PAC Report – Test and Trace Update

I refer to the above subject. A copy of the report dated 21 October prepared by “Public Accounts Committee” [PAC] is attached hereto [LINK].

I have noted the content and recommendations to UK Government. I offer the following observations that may be helpful to PAC in its scrutiny and overview role.

The RT-PCR test – referred to in the report – has been found to be not fit for purpose; following an external peer review by a well respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists [LINK]. They published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The peer review revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The findings have subsequently been endorsed in court judgements. A chronology of recent litigation on this subject is set out in Annex 1 below.

The PAC refer to an eye-watering budget of £37 billion over two years for the test and trace programme. It remains unclear why important information regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test has not been drawn to the attention of Committee members by UK Government officials. The invalidity of the test undermines the entire UK Government Covid response strategy and policy.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to circulate this information to Committee members for their information in their scrutiny and overview role. I have attached hereto details of the external peer review. Thank you.  
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


Annex 1
Evidence – Invalidity of RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings [Ref: 9F 148/21], the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the RT-PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the RT-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. Kammerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a RT-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 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 judgement VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what is considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognised experts, studies and the World Health Organisation, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a RT-PCR test for Covid 19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The RT-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 pf 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 [RT-PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 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 RT-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 “numbers 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 infection / 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 international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

27 November 2020
A highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review by the 22 scientists revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The following key findings were revealed.
1.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests are incapable of distinguishing between the virus and remnants of viral fragments discarded by the immune system after successfully dispatching the virus.
2.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests cannot be used diagnostically to determine who is infectious and who is not.
3.  Recommended Cycle Threshold [Ct] Values to determine a reasonable cut off point for who is likely infectious versus who is likely not infectious were curiously omitted.
4.  The products for the Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests were never validated at the molecular level.
5.  The peer-review process for the Corman-Drosten paper lasted only two days. For reference, it is common practice for most published manuscripts to go through an extensive two-month [or longer] peer-review process.
6.  The Corman-Drosten authors had significant financial conflicts of interest that they did not disclose during the peer-review process.

11 November 2020
An appeal 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]. The virus 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 RT-PCR test result cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


201 Response

Awaiting Reply


202 Enquiry

Customer Contact Team
Welsh Parliament
Cardiff Bay
CF99 1SN

Date: 30  October  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: Letter dated 28 October 2021 to Public Accounts Committee House of Commons London

I attach hereto my letter dated 28 October 2021 addressed to the Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons, London. [LINK]

I would be grateful if you could note the content of the letter – and attachments [LINK] [LINK] – and advise me whether the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection has been drawn to the attention of scrutiny and overview Committees at Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament, by officials from Welsh Government.

This information is likely to be of interest to your “Public Accounts Committee” and “Health and Social Care Committee” in their scrutiny and overview role. 

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

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


202 Response

Awaiting Reply


203 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Date: 31  October  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: Covid passes extended to Cinemas, theatres and concert halls from 15 November 2021

I refer to the announcement by the First Minister 29 October 2021 that the requirement for “Covid passes” will be extended to cinemas, theatres and concert halls from 15 November 2021 and that public houses, restaurants and cafes might also require passes if infection rates continue to rise.

The First Minister confirmed that approximately 2000 cases of a new and possibly more transmissible form of the delta variant had been identified in Wales. 

Following the announcement, I have received numerous requests for further information and clarification from businesses affected by the latest restrictions. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could arrange to respond to the following 3-point enquiry. Can you please arrange to provide:

  1. Details of the new form of delta variant now identified in Wales, and
  2. A copy of the scientific evidence available to Welsh Government to support the decision to extend Covid passes to cinemas, theatres and concert halls from 15 November 2021.
  3. A “hyperlink” to the latest version of the new regulations that take effect in Wales from 15 November 2021.    

The information, now requested, will enable me to respond to enquires received from affected businesses in Wales. As the new restrictions take effect from 15 November, a prompt reply would be appreciated. Thank you. 

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


203 Response

Awaiting Reply


204 Enquiry

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

Date: 1  November  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject  –  Contract Award Notice 2020 / S207-506291 – AI Software package and information system

I attach hereto [LINK] details of “Contract Award Notice” 2020 / S207-506291.  I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information from MHRA records.

  1. the date MHRA received the AI software package and information system, and
  2. the date the AI software package and information system was operational in the UK.
  3. Generic information regarding the outputs / reports available from the new software. I stress, no personal data should be provided to ensure compliance with the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

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)


204 Response

Subject: FOI 21/1176 CSC 73302 – Contract Award Notice 2020 / S207-506291 – AI Software package and information system
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:27:27 +0000
From: Pharmacovigilanceservice <Pharmacovigilanceservice@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

Dear Wynne Jones,

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

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


205 Enquiry

Maria Battle
Chair – Hywel Dda University Health Board [H D U H B]
Corporate Offices
Ystwyth Building
St David’s Park
Job’s Well Road
Carmarthen
Carmarthenshire
SA31 3BB

Date: 2  November  2021

Dear Maria Battle

Subject: Suspension of visitors to all hospitals in H D U H B area

I refer to the above subject and attach article published in Tivyside Advertiser 2 November 2021. [LINK]

I note the decision taken by the H D U H B to only allow visitors at hospitals in Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion in extenuating circumstances such as end of life and critical visits, due to a rise in Covid 19 case rates in the H D U H B area. Covid “case” rates are based on the results of RT-PCR tests.  The test has been found to be not fit for purpose by a highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists. They published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The findings have subsequently been endorsed in recent court judgements, as outlined in Annex 1 below. The following documents are attached hereto as supporting evidence.

  1. Paper by “Corman-Drosten” published 23 January 2020. “Cease and Desist” papers were served on Dr Christian Drosten 15 December 2020 regarding the fraudulent content of the paper. [LINK]
  2. External Peer Review dated 27 November 2020. [LINL]

I would be grateful if the Board could urgently review the decision not to allow visitors to hospitals, taking into consideration the recent court judgements regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of viral infection. I take the view that important decisions should not be taken by the Board based on fraudulent test data and flawed health data / statistics.

I would be grateful if you could arrange to circulate this important information to all Board members. If you require additional information you are welcome to contact me at any time.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Annex
Evidence – Invalidity of RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings [Ref: 9F 148/21], the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the RT-PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the RT-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. Kammerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a RT-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 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 judgement VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what is considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognised experts, studies and the World Health Organisation, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a RT-PCR test for Covid 19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The RT-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 pf 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 [RT-PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 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 RT-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 “numbers 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 infection / 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 international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

27 November 2020
A highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review by the 22 scientists revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The following key findings were revealed.
1.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests are incapable of distinguishing between the virus and remnants of viral fragments discarded by the immune system after successfully dispatching the virus.
2.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests cannot be used diagnostically to determine who is infectious and who is not.
3.  Recommended Cycle Threshold [Ct] Values to determine a reasonable cut off point for who is likely infectious versus who is likely not infectious were curiously omitted.
4.  The products for the Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests were never validated at the molecular level.
5.  The peer-review process for the Corman-Drosten paper lasted only two days. For reference, it is common practice for most published manuscripts to go through an extensive two-month [or longer] peer-review process.
6.  The Corman-Drosten authors had significant financial conflicts of interest that they did not disclose during the peer-review process.

11 November 2020
An appeal 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]. The virus 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 RT-PCR test result cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


205 Response

Awaiting Reply


206 Enquiry

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

Date: 5  November  2021

Dear Customer Services Team

Subject: Covid Pill Lagevrio

I attach hereto copy of MHRA Press Release dated 4 November. [LINK]

I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the “Public Assessment Report” [PAR] for the new Covid pill “Lagevrio“.

If the PAR is available on your website a link to the document will suffice. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


206 Response

Awaiting Reply


207 Enquiry

David Lewis (c. copied to Ken Murphy Tesco CEO)
Tesco House
Shire Park
Kestrel Way
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire
AL7 1GA

Date: 15  November  2021

Dear David Lewis,

Subject: – Tesco Christmas Advertising – Covid 19 Passport

I refer to the above subject and note reference to “Covid 19 Passport” in your Christmas advertising campaign. Video footage is available at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=0P7QSCLtRwI

Tesco confirms that Santa could be quarantined if not vaccinated. You need to be aware that Covid experimental gene-editing therapies [also referred to as vaccines] have not been approved for use in the human population. In the UK, they have received temporary emergency authorisation under R.174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Trials are due to end in 2023. The latest official data available regarding vaccine adverse reactions, and deaths, following national roll-out is set out in Annex 1 below. Experimentation on human subject is a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code: a summary is set out in Annex 2 below.

I take the view that it is a matter for UK Government to issue factually correct information to the general public regarding the requirement to quarantine, and not a matter for Tesco in a Christmas advertising campaign.

I would therefore be grateful if you could provide me with details of your formal complaints process so that these matters can be examined in detail.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience. I reserve the right to refer this matter to UK Government departments / external stakeholders, as necessary, if issues can not be resolved through Tesco “internal complaints process“. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


Annex 1
Evidence – MHRA adverse reaction “yellow card” data
Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]

Data to 20 October 2021
AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 835,086 – total deaths 1,107
Moderna – total adverse reactions 54,555 – total deaths 20
Pfizer – total adverse reactions 350,870 – total deaths 576
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 3,483 – total deaths 31
Total – total adverse reactions 1,243,994 – total deaths 1,734
It is estimated that, for various reasons,only 10% of serious reactions and between 3 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. The information provided above can therefore be adjusted accordingly.

Annex 2
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.
    1. 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.

207 Response

Awaiting Reply


208 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
UK Health Security Agency
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8OG

Date: 19  November  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Scientific evidence regarding the isolation, purification and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 virus

I refer to the above subject and attach letter [LINK] – dated 19 November – from the FOI Team at the Department for Health and Social Care [DHSC]. The content should be self-explanatory. My request for information is therefore redirected to the UK Health Security Agency [UKHSA] as advised. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

A copy of any scientific evidence held by UKHSA confirming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus – purportedly the cause of Covid 19 infection – has been isolated, purified with its viral genome sequenced.

I would expect the information to be available in a single peer-reviewed scientific paper held by UKHSA, given that the information is not held by the DHSC. If you require further clarification you are welcome to contact me at any time. Thank you.     

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


208 Response

Subject: Re: Case 1753 – CJ 208 – Scientific evidence regarding the isolation, purification and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 virus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:49:13 +0000
From: Information Rights <InformationRights@ukhsa.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: Information Rights <InformationRights@ukhsa.gov.uk>
Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] the UK Health Security Agency’s response to your Freedom of Information request. 

Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
UK Health Security Agency
www.gov.uk/ukhsa  Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA

209 Enquiry

Expert Committee Support Team
Commission on Human Medicines [CHM]
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

Date: 23  November  2021

Dear Expert Committee Support Team

Subject: Commission on Human Medicines – Minutes of meetings: Expert Working Groups

I refer to the above subject and note that the “Commission on Human Medicines” [CMA] is an advisory non-departmental public body sponsored by the “Department of Health and Social Care” [DHSC]. The Commission advises ministers on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products.

I now refer specifically to the following two expert groups that advise the CMA:

  1. Covid 19 Vaccines Safety Surveillance Methodologies Expert Working Group, and
  2. Covid 19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group

Additional information regarding group membership and role is attached [LINK]. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a hyperlink to the published minutes of meeting held by these two Expert Working Groups. I look forward to receiving the information at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


209 Response

Subject: CSC 76598 CJ 209 – Commission on Human Medicines – Minutes of meetings: Expert Working Groups
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:08:37 +0000
From: MHRA Customer Services <MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Wynne Jones,

Thank you for your email.

Minutes for the COVID-19 meetings are not published

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


210 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
Canolfan Rheidol
Rhodfa Padarn
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3UE

Date: 27  November  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: New temporary road layout at Cardigan, Aberaeron, New Quay and Aberystwyth

Ceredigion County Council has implemented new temporary road layouts at Cardigan, Aberaeron, New Quay and Aberystwyth. From your file records, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide the following information.

  1. Total actual cost of the new temporary road layouts, with the information itemised as under:
    1. Total cost at Cardigan
    2. Total cost at Aberaeron
    3. Total cost at New Quay
    4. Total cost at Aberystwyth
  2. Current estimate of the cost to restore the original road layout, with the information itemised as under:
    1. Total estimate at Cardigan
    2. Total estimate at Aberaeron
    3. Total estimate at New Quay
    4. Total estimate at Aberystwyth

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)


210 Response

Awaiting Reply


211 Enquiry

Freedom of Information Team
City and County of Swansea
Civic Centre
Oystermouth Road
Swansea
SA1 3SN

Date: 27  November  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Cinema & Co Castle Street Swansea – Closure Order under Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984

I refer to the above subject and would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the “closure order” issued by Swansea Council under Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984. The order was served on “Cinema & Co.” Castle Street Swansea.

If you consider it necessary any personal data can be redacted to comply with the data management principles set out in the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

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)


211 Response

Subject: Freedom of Information Request 00263555(804)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:22:24 +0000
From: Environment FOI <EnvironmentFOI@swansea.gov.uk>
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>

 

Dear Mr Jones

Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information request received 29th November 2021. [LINK-1 | LINK-2]

 

Kind Regards

Lee Davies

Development Manager

Rheolwr Datblygu

( 01792 636714 | 07796 275669

* lee.davies@swansea.gov.uk

Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a byddwn yn ymdrin â gohebiaeth Gymraeg a Saesneg i’r un safonau ac amserlenni.

We welcome correspondence in Welsh and will deal with Welsh and English correspondence to the same standards and timescales


211 Response (BGB Reply To Response)

Lee Davies
Development Manager
City and County of Swansea
Civic Centre
Oystermouth Road
Swansea
SA1 3SN

Date: 30  November  2021

Dear Lee Davies

Subject: Cinema & Co Castle Street Swansea – Closure Notice under Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984 – [FOI Request 00263555(804)]

I refer to the above subject and thank you for your prompt reply to my request for information. Your cover letter and scanned copy of “closure notice” was provided 30 November 2021.

The closure notice refers to the following statute / regulations  

  1. Regulation 16 / 16A & Schedule 8 [2] of The Health Protection [Coronavirus Restrictions] [No.5] [Wales] Regulations 2020, as amended, and
  2. Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984.

I would be grateful if you could clarify which specific section of the Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984 the closure notice relates to.

You may be aware that Welsh Government and Welsh Parliament have been informed that the Health Protection [Coronavirus Restrictions] [No.5] [Wales] Regulations 2020, as amended, can not be enforced in Wales for the reasons previously drawn to their attention and reproduced 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. 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. 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.

Welsh Government and / or Welsh Parliament – who are now stakeholders in correspondence – should be in a position to update you on the latest information regarding the invalidity of the RT-PCR test for diagnosis of viral infection.

I look forward to receiving clarification on which specific section of the Public Health [Control of Disease] Act 1984 the closure notice served on Cinema & Co. 17 Castle Street Swansea relates to. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones
(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)

Stakeholders [for information]
cc   Welsh Government  – First Minister, Mark Drakeford MS
cc   Welsh Parliament – Health and Social Care Committee

Annex 1
Evidence – Invalidity of RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings [Ref: 9F 148/21], the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the RT-PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the RT-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. Kammerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a RT-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 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 judgement VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what is considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognised experts, studies and the World Health Organisation, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a RT-PCR test for Covid 19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The RT-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 pf 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 [RT-PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 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 RT-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 “numbers 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 infection / 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 international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

27 November 2020
A highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review by the 22 scientists revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The following key findings were revealed.
1.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests are incapable of distinguishing between the virus and remnants of viral fragments discarded by the immune system after successfully dispatching the virus.
2.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests cannot be used diagnostically to determine who is infectious and who is not.
3.  Recommended Cycle Threshold [Ct] Values to determine a reasonable cut off point for who is likely infectious versus who is likely not infectious were curiously omitted.
4.  The products for the Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests were never validated at the molecular level.
5.  The peer-review process for the Corman-Drosten paper lasted only two days. For reference, it is common practice for most published manuscripts to go through an extensive two-month [or longer] peer-review process.
6.  The Corman-Drosten authors had significant financial conflicts of interest that they did not disclose during the peer-review process.

11 November 2020
An appeal 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]. The virus 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 RT-PCR test result cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


212 Enquiry

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

Date: 28  November  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject:  Validation process for Covid 19 test kits in the private market

I refer to the Regulatory Impact Assessment [RIA] undertaken to support the “Medical Devices [Coronavirus Test Device Approvals] [Amendment] Regulations 2021“. A copy is attached hereto [LINK] . I note from paragraph 78 – highlighted for your convenience – that new strains [variants] of  SARS-CoV-2 virus will require new test kits to be developed by the private sector and re-validated to ensure public confidence in the quality of the testing process. As the validation process is under the control of the Department for Health and Social Care [DHSC] I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

I would be pleased to receive a copy of the guidance issued by DHSC to test kit manufacturers regarding the re-validation process when new SARS-CoV-2 variants – for example ” Delta variant” and “Omicron variant” – are detected in the UK.

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)


212 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1376108
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:05:25 +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 the Department of Health and Social Care’s response to your recent FOI request (our ref:FOI-1376108).

Yours sincerely, 

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


213 Enquiry

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

Date: 1  December  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject:  Fast Track Pathway Tool

I attach DHSC document entitled “Fast Track Pathway Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare” published December 2018 [LINK]. From your records, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information.

  1. Confirmation that the attached document – published December 2018 – is the latest version. If an updated version has been subsequently published I would be pleased to receive a copy.
  2. Given that the health service is a devolved function, does the document also apply to the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


213 Response

Subject: Department of Health and Social Care’s Response to your recent FOI request – Our ref: FOI-1376944
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:07:09 +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-1376944).

Yours sincerely, 

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.


214 Enquiry

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

Date: 3  December  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: New Covid 19 vaccination contract with Pfizer / BioNTech and Moderna

I refer to the above subject and attach hereto DHSC Press Release dated 2 December 2021. [LINK]

I note that the UK Government has signed new contracts with “Pfizer / BioNTech” and “Moderna” to deliver 114 million additional doses of modified vaccines to combat the new Omicron variant and other new variants; for delivery and use in the years 2022 and 2023. I further note that the UK Government intends to donate 100 million doses of Covid 19 vaccines to countries in need by mid 2022. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information from DHSC records.

  1. Confirmation whether the modified vaccines, under this contact, are to be granted temporary emergency authorisation under R.174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012, or whether full market approval for use in the UK is required.
  2. Brief details of any trials / studies planned to establish the safety and efficacy of the modified vaccines to be purchased under this contract.
  3. Confirmation whether the 100 million doses of vaccines to be donated to countries in need are to be granted temporary emergency authorisation under R.174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012, or whether full market approval is required prior to export.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


214 Response

Awaiting Reply


215 Enquiry

Correspondence Team
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Date:  7  December  2021

Dear Correspondence Team

Subject: Open letter from “PJH Law” to “National Health Service” dated 3 December 2021

I attach hereto copy of open letter dated 3 December 2021 [LINK]- now placed in the public domain – from “PJH Law” addressed to Amanda Pritchard Chief Executive Officer National Health Service. In view of the importance of the content with regard to UK Government Policy, I would be grateful if you could circulate a copy of the letter to Cabinet Members to inform Covid 19 response strategy and policy. Thank you.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


215 Response

Awaiting Reply


216 Enquiry

Information Rights Team
UK Health Security Agency [UKHSA]
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8OG

Date: 7  December  2021

Dear Information Rights Team

Subject: Myocarditis and Pericarditis following Covid 19 vaccination

I note from attached document [LINK] – published on Gov.UK 7 December 2021 – that UKHSA has issued new clinical guidance to healthcare professionals to support the detection and management of clinical cases of Myocarditis and Pericarditis associated with the roll-out of the experimental mRNA Covid 19 vaccines. I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with the following information from your records.

Brief details of the investigations now underway by UKHSA – in conjunction with your medical regulator MHRA – to establish linkage between cases of Myocarditis and Pericarditis and the roll-out of experimental mRNA Covid 19 vaccines.

Cases are now being reported in UK, Europe and America. As you are no doubt aware, 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 as set out 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
VAERS data analysis site [with pdf download report]
http://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/01/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-9-24-2021/

I look forward to receiving brief details of the investigation now underway at your convenience. Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


216 Response

Subject: Re: Case Reference 1909 – CJ 216 – Myocarditis and Pericarditis following Covid 19 vaccination
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 15:34:19 +0000
From: Information Rights <InformationRights@ukhsa.gov.uk>
To: Wynne Jones <cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru>
CC: Information Rights <InformationRights@ukhsa.gov.uk>
Dear Wynne Jones,

Please find attached UK Health Security Agency’s response to your request. 

Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
UK Health Security Agency
www.gov.uk/ukhsa  Follow us on Twitter @UKHSA


217 Enquiry

Customer Contact Centre
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Date:  9  December  2021

Dear Customer Contact Team

Subject: Welsh Government vaccination information leaflet by post

I refer to the above subject and attach scanned copy [LINK] of abstract from an information leaflet delivered by post in Wales.

I regret, I must draw your attention to what I consider to be misleading information in the leaflet. Reference is made to the vaccine saving lives and preventing many people needing hospital treatment for Covid 19 infection, and that the vaccine increases protection. The information leaflet further asserts that the booster dose offers full protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that people should self-isolate for 10 days following a positive RT-PCR test result.  The scientific evidence, now available, suggests that these are misleading statements.

No reference is made in the information leaflet to the fact that the Covid 19 vaccines have not been approved for use by the “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA]. They have been granted temporary emergency authorisation under R.174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Phase 3 trials are due to end in 2023. The vaccination programme in Wales is therefore considered to be an ongoing experiment, pending the outcome of Phase 3 trials in 2023. Experimentation on human subjects is a clear breach of the Nuremberg Code: a summary is provided in Annex 1 below.  

No reference is made in the information leaflet to the significant number of serious adverse reactions and deaths recorded by medical regulators in UK, Europe and America following the roll-out of the inoculations. Cases of Myocarditis and Pericarditis are now being reported in UK, Europe and America. 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 as set out 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
VAERS data analysis site [with pdf download report]
http://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/01/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-9-24-2021/

A summary of the latest information provided by MHRA is set out in Annex 2 below.

Additionally, the information leaflet refers to the RT-PCR test for the diagnosis of Covid 19 infection. I must advise you that the test has been found to be not fit for purpose for the reasons set out in Annex 3 below.

I would therefore be grateful if Welsh Government could consider withdrawing the information leaflet provided by post in Wales and reissue the leaflet taking into consideration the important information now provided. This will enable recipients of the information leaflet to take informed decisions on how they wish to proceed.

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

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.

Annex 2
Evidence – MHRA adverse reaction “yellow card” data

Covid 19 experimental gene-editing treatments [vaccine]

Data to 24 November 2021
AstraZeneca – total adverse reactions 844,199 – total deaths 1,136
Moderna – total adverse reactions 62,126 – total deaths 18
Pfizer – total adverse reactions 388,612 – total deaths 628
Unspecified – total adverse reactions 3,870 – total deaths 32
Total – total adverse reactions 1,298,807 – total deaths 1,814
It is estimated that, for various reasons,only 10% of serious reactions and between 3 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. The information provided above can therefore be adjusted accordingly.

Annex 3
Evidence – Invalidity of RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection

19 July 2021
U S Food and Drug Administration [US-FDA] withdraws emergency use authorisation of RT-PCR test, effective 31 December 2021.

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings [Ref: 9F 148/21], the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the RT-PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the RT-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. Kammerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a RT-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 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 judgement VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what is considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognised experts, studies and the World Health Organisation, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a RT-PCR test for Covid 19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The RT-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 [RT-PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 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 RT-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 “numbers 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 infection / 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 international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

27 November 2020
A highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review by the 22 scientists revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The following key findings were revealed.
1.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests are incapable of distinguishing between the virus and remnants of viral fragments discarded by the immune system after successfully dispatching the virus.
2.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests cannot be used diagnostically to determine who is infectious and who is not.
3.  Recommended Cycle Threshold [Ct] Values to determine a reasonable cut off point for who is likely infectious versus who is likely not infectious were curiously omitted.
4.  The products for the Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests were never validated at the molecular level.
5.  The peer-review process for the Corman-Drosten paper lasted only two days. For reference, it is common practice for most published manuscripts to go through an extensive two-month [or longer] peer-review process.
6.  The Corman-Drosten authors had significant financial conflicts of interest that they did not disclose during the peer-review process.

11 November 2020
An appeal 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]. The virus 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 RT-PCR test result cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


217 Response

Awaiting Reply


218 Enquiry

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

Date: 14  December  2021

Dear Freedom of Information Officer

Subject: Fast Track Pathway Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare

I attach “Fast Track Pathway Tool for NHS Continuing Healthcare” [LINK], published by the DHSC December 2018. I am advised by DHSC that the document only applies to England.

As the health service is devolved in Wales, I would be grateful if you could arrange to provide me with a copy of the equivalent document currently in use in Wales. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones

(BGB Correspondence Journal Editor)


218 Response

Subject: Freedom of Information Request – ATISN 15782 – Fast Track Pathway Tool
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:18:47 +0000
From: HSSBriefingsandMeeting@gov.wales
To: cj-editor@biggeesblog.cymru

Dear Mr Jones,

Please find attached [LINK] letter regarding your request for information.

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!


219 Enquiry

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

Date: 15  December  2021

Dear Team Members

Subject: Authorisation of special use of SARS-CoV-2 end-point RT-PCR Diagnostic Test System

I refer to the above subject. I am advised by the UK medical regulator MHRA that the Secretary of State has – pursuant to S.39 [2] of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 – authorised the special use of a non-CE marked medical device on to the UK market: this being a SARS-CoV-2 end-point RT-PCR Diagnostic Test System. MHRA decision notice DEV/011/2020/004, dated 21 December 2020 refers.

The diagnostic test system has been found to be not fit for purpose following recent court judgements, as summarised in Annex 1 below. Consequently, I would be grateful if you could provide me with a copy of the “authorisation and supporting justification” provided by the Secretary of State to the UK medical regulator MHRA, pursuant to S.39 [2] of the Regulations.

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)


Annex 1
Evidence – Invalidity of RT-PCR test for diagnosis of Covid 19 infection

19 July 2021
U S Food and Drug Administration [US-FDA] withdraws emergency use authorisation of RT-PCR test, effective 31 December 2021.

8 April 2021
In summary proceedings [Ref: 9F 148/21], the Weimar Family Court in Germany ruled on the subject of the RT-PCR test. The expert witness Prof. Dr. med Kappstein pointed out in her testimony that the RT-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. Kammerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a RT-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 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 judgement VGW-103/048/3227/2021-2 ruled on a complaint filed by the Freedom Party of Austria [FPO] against what is considered a grossly illegal ban on a registered rally. In its ruling, the court rejected the Corona policy of the federal government. Citing internationally recognised experts, studies and the World Health Organisation, the court found that the Minister of Health, Anschober’s, disease definitions were wrong and that a RT-PCR test for Covid 19 diagnosis was unsuitable. The RT-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 [RT-PCR test], regardless of clinical manifestation, or
2]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antigen, who fulfils the clinical criteria, or
3]  Any person with detection of SARS-CoV-2 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 RT-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 “numbers 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 infection / 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 international lawyers prosecuting global officials over Covid 19.

27 November 2020
A highly respected group of 22 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for the scientific journal “Eurosurveillance” to retract the article by Dr Christian Drosten published 23 January 2020 titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus {2019 – nCoV} by real-time RT-PCR [Eurosurveillance 25{8}2020]. The external peer review by the 22 scientists revealed, inter alia, 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level, and concluded that the test should not be used for the diagnosis of viral infection. The following key findings were revealed.
1.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests are incapable of distinguishing between the virus and remnants of viral fragments discarded by the immune system after successfully dispatching the virus.
2.  Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests cannot be used diagnostically to determine who is infectious and who is not.
3.  Recommended Cycle Threshold [Ct] Values to determine a reasonable cut off point for who is likely infectious versus who is likely not infectious were curiously omitted.
4.  The products for the Qualitative Covid RT-PCR tests were never validated at the molecular level.
5.  The peer-review process for the Corman-Drosten paper lasted only two days. For reference, it is common practice for most published manuscripts to go through an extensive two-month [or longer] peer-review process.
6.  The Corman-Drosten authors had significant financial conflicts of interest that they did not disclose during the peer-review process.

11 November 2020
An appeal 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]. The virus 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 RT-PCR test result cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.


219 Response

Awaiting Reply


220 Enquiry

Information Compliance Team
University Offices
University of Oxford
Wellington Square
Oxford
OX1 2JD

Date: 22  December  2021

Dear Information Compliance Team

Subject: Panoramic Study Covid 19 Antiviral treatments

I refer to the above subject, as explained on your website at the following link.

https://www.panoramictrial.org/participant-information

I note that all the treatments in the “Panoramic Trial” have been approved by the UK “Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency” [MHRA]. From your records, I would be grateful if you could clarify whether the MHRA has granted full approval for these treatments, or whether the MHRA has granted emergency authorisation – under R.174 Human Medicines Regulations 2012 – for these treatments.

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

Yours sincerely

Wynne Jones


219 Response

Awaiting Reply


 

Bookmark