HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
In my view the government should be taking advice from a broader band of scientists rather than cherry-picking only those who support the line they have taken. Instead it has based its strategy on advice from one group of scientists whilst ignoring opposing advice from equally qualified scientists. Neil Ferguson has had to downgrade his projections from 550,00 deaths in the UK to 20,000 or even lower and yet it was his initial incorrect model which was used to justify the current removal of our civil liberties.
The elderly and most vulnerable (particularly those in care homes) should have been protected from the beginning and the young and healthy allowed to live their lives as normal. 30,000 people died in the UK during the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/69 without any of the extreme measures that we are facing today being enforced. Had a daily death toll been published in those day the same level of fear would have been induced to influence a compliant population.
My main concern is the threat of making any experimental or indeed any vaccine mandatory. No vaccine has ever been 100% safe nor 100% effective. The flu vaccine has a particularly poor record at achieving immunity, especially in the elderly. In addition, in peer reviewed studies it has been suggested that the influenza vaccine, by a process known as virus interference, increases the risk of infection from any other respiratory virus and the same could happen with a Covid-19 vaccine..
The dreadful harm caused to millions of children by the UK vaccine schedule is ignored. The Vaccine Damages Payment Act has paid £73million in compensation between 1979 and 2014, even though it is made as difficult as possible for parents to claim.
Herd immunity must not be used as a justification for vaccinating everyone against Covid-19. Herd immunity can only be relevant when an illness is caught naturally and long-lasting immunity thus achieved. Any immunity from any of the existing vaccines lasts for a maximum of ten years and some a lot less, meaning that at any one time roughly 50% of the population have no immunity from vaccines.
Particularly worrying is a new untested vaccine being rushed into production with no inert substance being used as a placebo and no time to assess long-term side effects such as auto-immune diseases and cancer. Paul Offit, an arch proponent of vaccines, has stated that vaccines for this sort of disease have proved problematic in the past. People who had the vaccines and then contracted the illness fared significantly worse than the unvaccinated.
The Nuremberg Code was enacted after the evils of Nazi Germany and under “Permissible Medical Experiments” it is stated that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states clearly “Free and informed consent must be respected in the fields of medicine and biology.”
Under the Human Rights’ Act, article 8 would be breached by “compulsory medical treatment or testing”.
In the UK it is a long-established legal principle that valid consent must be obtained before any medical intervention can lawfully take place. This means that a full patient information leaflet on any new vaccine should be given to anybody considering receiving the vaccine and all side-effects explained in detail.
Informed consent to medical treatment must be sacrosanct . Any measures taken to permit State interference to protect health need to be necessary, which implies both a level of proportionality and a sound scientific basis and to be in force for as short a time as possible. It is unjustifiable to enforce any restrictions on the lives of those who decline any vaccine.
I expect the Government to respect my human rights.
24 April 2020