A subscriber's correspondence with his MP's office
“Australia is a representative democracy. In this political system, eligible people vote for candidates to carry out the business of governing on their behalf.”
Australian democracy: an overview
“To carry out the business of governing on their behalf.” That’s pretty clear, don’t you think? Not “to have government decide what’s best for them and then ram it down their throats, telling them “‘it’s for the greater good’”, because government is not there to decide what that “greater good” is. In fact, as Alexandra Marshall underlines in this insightful essay, The greater good - or a grander evil?:
“For thousands of years, Western Civilisation has rejected the ‘greater good’ in favour of individual supremacy. It is only through enshrining the safety and liberty of each member of society – rich or poor – that society has flourished. Respecting the individual, by proxy, creates respect for society at large. While it is not a perfect solution, it has proven enticing enough that people run from collectivist regimes toward the safety of Western democracy. Even liberty’s critics must admit that whatever is going on here is desirable when compared to alternative systems.”
With that preface, I will now share the correspondence between one of my subscribers in Victoria, Andrew, and a staffer from his local Member of Parliament’s electorate office.
Andrew and I hope that doing so will inspire you to contact your own political representatives - at Federal, State and Local Government levels - and to cc opponent candidates for their seats. While I personally don’t believe that our present dire peril has a political solution, it’s vitally important to put elected representatives on notice that we know they are acting against our interests, and will hold them legally responsible for their harm their actions have inflicted on us.
Note that Andrew’s MP did not deign to respond to his constituent; apparently our representative democracy isn’t that representative.
Note also that while Andrew took the time to thoroughly reference and document his comments and requests for information, his MP’s staffer, Lucy Gunner, blew him off with lazy canards and selective quoting of ATAGI, a captured agency with a web of conflicts of interest so extensive as to render it utterly untrustworthy.
Email 1: Andrew to his MP, Will Fowles, Labor member for Burwood (VIC)
From: Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2022 2:44 PM
To: Will Fowles <Will.Fowles@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Boosters
Will,
Please provide me with the evidence that your regime is using to justify an attempt to mandate a third booster shot when the following evidence below applies.
Furthermore I have attached a document that has links to over 1000 studies published in peer reviewed medical journals documenting the risks of the COVID vaccines.
I think you would agree __ Where there is risk there must be choice __
While most other democratically elected governments around the world are removing mandates UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden USA etc your regime seems to be hell bent on going in the opposite direction Why? What is driving this push?
At first public hearing of Pandemic Declaration Accountability and Oversight Committee Brett Sutton was asked “going from the latest advice from the ACHO report that recommends against blanket booster mandates for people. How is it possible the Premier is pushing for this with the opposite advice from ACHO.”
Sutton admits he has not provided any advice on boosters.
The Premier has no health advice to be pushing a booster mandate at press conferences, it is clearly his own decision.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) on Jan. 11 warned, “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
EU drug regulators, World Health Organization experts and the former chairman of the UK’s COVID task force all cited mounting evidence mRNA COVID boosters aren’t working and the strategy should be dropped.
European Union drug regulators on Tuesday warned frequent COVID boosters could adversely affect the immune system and said there are currently no data to support repeated doses.
According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), continued booster doses every four months could pose a risk of overloading people’s immune systems and lead to fatigue.
“repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy,” the EMA’s head of vaccines strategy, Marco Cavaleri, said Tuesday during a press briefing.
COVID should be treated as an endemic virus similar to the flu and mass vaccination should end, said Dr. Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK’s vaccine task force.
“Mass population-based vaccination in the UK should now end.”
More alarmingly, third and fourth ‘booster’ shots have not been tested in any randomised trials, and other data on the efficacy and safety of administering further doses are scanty.
In other words, data on the only outcome properly tested in randomised trials, the prevention of cases by two vaccinations, appear unreliable, possibly due to rapidly waning effects or other factors, and other outcomes and procedures have not been investigated in randomised trials, meaning there is no secure evidence either way.
Protection against “severe disease” is “reasonable right now” for people who have taken a “third dose” of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Put aside the fact that even those words are at best an optimistic interpretation of current data.
Put aside the fact that Pfizer has NEVER compared a three-dose vaccine regimen to a placebo in a clinical trial.
Put aside the fact that “reasonable right now” suggests that any effect of a third dose will not last.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla acknowledged Monday that two doses of the vaccine his company produces with BioNTech "offer very limited protection, if any" against the dominant omicron variant.
Adding a third dose, he said in an interview with Yahoo Finance, provides "reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths."
"Against death, very good (protection), and less protection against infection," the Pfizer chief added.
Some 76 per cent of all Norwegians have now received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, while 67 per cent of the population is fully vaccinated, according to the country's Institute of Public Health. (No mention of vaccination passports or mandates people living as equals regardless of their medical status, they urge people to get vaccinated but there are no checks or restrictions on those who haven’t, same as UK, Singapore, Denmark, Portugal and Ireland, none are panicking about the vaccination of children where it is overwhelmingly a mild disease)
Moving on: Denmark drops most of its COVID-19 restrictions
By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 27, 2022
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has decided to lead the way in managing COVID-19 and getting back to normal, announcing all virus restrictions will be dropped as of Feb. 1.
“We say goodbye to the restrictions and welcome the life we knew before,” Ms. Frederiksen said. “As of Feb. 1, Denmark will be open.”
Masks no longer will be required in places like public transportation, restaurants and shops, though they should be worn in hospitals, health care facilities and homes for the elderly.
The shift is part of a European push to treat COVID-19 as an endemic disease and manage it in the background of society. Wide swaths of the continent have been infected by the omicron variant, and 7 in 10 persons in the European Union are fully vaccinated.
Denmark has an even higher vaccination rate of 81%, according to the Our World in Data website.
Britain Rolls Back Vax Mandate
Boris Johnson announced the end of mandatory masks, vaccine passports, and working from home Wednesday as Omicron wanes.
JANUARY 19, 2022
It’s the end of mask mandates, vaccine passports, and work-from-home for England, as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced Wednesday that Brits can finally return to the office and some sense of normalcy. Attributing this more relaxed approach to the Omicron variant having reached its peak and begun to decline, Johnson said the government will no longer mandate masks anywhere, including classrooms and public transportation, beginning tomorrow. Vaccine passports and work from home recommendations will end next Thursday, January 27.
Exclusive: U-turn on mandatory Covid vaccinations for NHS and social care workers
Gabriella Swerling, Ben Riley-Smith 11 hrs ago
Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, will on Monday meet fellow ministers on the Covid-Operations Cabinet committee to rubber stamp the decision on the about-turn.
Multiple government sources said ministers are expected to end the requirement because the omicron Covid variant, now dominant in the UK, is milder than previous strains.
The move comes after warnings that almost 80,000 healthcare workers would be forced out of their jobs because they had declined to take two doses of a Covid vaccine.
The Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of GPs have all pushed for the requirement to be delayed, with warnings it would have a "catastrophic" impact.
The jab requirement for NHS workers was meant to come into force in April – making this Thursday, Feb 3, the last day on which staff could get their first jab in order to be fully vaccinated in time.
The legal requirement for care home staff to be fully vaccinated came into effect in November. An estimated 40,000 people lost their jobs over the policy. Under the new rules, they are expected to be able to return to work in the sector.
On Sunday night, care home representatives expressed fury at the handling of the issue, saying the flip-flopping had "devastated our workforce and brought providers to their knees".
The change of approach reflects Downing Street's increasing focus on how the UK must "learn to live with Covid" as the surge of omicron cases fades.
Stripping back restrictions and policy interventions adopted earlier in the pandemic will be welcomed by a group of lockdown-sceptic Tory MPs frustrated by Boris Johnson's approach.
Ahead of Monday's key meeting to sign off the policy change, a senior government source familiar with discussions outlined the argument for ending the requirement.
"Omicron has changed things. When we first introduced the policy, it was delta that was the dominant variant. That was very high risk in terms of how severe it was," the source said.
"For omicron, while it is more transmissible, all the studies have shown it is less severe. That has changed the conversation about whether mandatory jabs are still proportionate."
At a recent parliamentary committee appearance, Mr Javid signalled that he was open to a change in approach, saying the mandatory jabs policy was being kept "under review".
Changing the law to force scores of workers to get Covid jabs sparked controversy when The Telegraph revealed the plans last March. A legal expert at the time said that the only comparable UK laws dated from the 1800s, when newborns had to be given smallpox jabs.
Matt Hancock, then the health secretary, had championed the change, and Mr Johnson agreed. But Mr Javid has been more cautious about Covid interventions.
It is unclear when the policy change, once signed off, will be announced. It is expected to be made public before the Feb 3 cut-off for unvaccinated NHS workers to get jabbed.
NHS guidance to employers said all front line staff who had not been vaccinated should start being called into formal meetings from Feb 4 and warned that they faced dismissal.
Last week, the Health Secretary said around 77,000 NHS workers remain unvaccinated against the virus. Ministers are expected to point to the fact that tens of thousands of healthcare workers were vaccinated after the original policy was announced.
Responding to The Telegraph's revelation that plans for mandatory vaccines in both the NHS and social care sector will be scrapped, Nadra Ahmed OBE, who chairs the National Care Association, said: "This decision epitomises the lack of foresight by ministers in choosing to drive the implementation of this policy without producing impact assessment prior to taking it to the vote.
"Every parliamentarian who voted for it in social care needs to take responsibility for the loss of staff our sector have suffered because of an ill-thought out policy. Social care has been used as a pilot which has devastated our workforce and brought providers to their knees."
Mike Padgham, the chairman of the Independent Care Group for York and North Yorkshire and the owner of Saint Cecilia's Care Services, which operates four care businesses, said: "It feels like a bit of a slap in the face.
"I like to think that all those staff that lost their jobs would get them back again, because we need them. It's what we argued in the beginning – the vaccine was a good thing, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
"Common sense seems to have prevailed now, but there's been a lot of heartache and sleepless nights for people – unnecessarily – in the midst of a pandemic, when we all said at the beginning that this wasn't the right approach.
"This just shows that they don't understand the difference between the NHS and social care sectors and both need to be strong to support each other. "
It is understood that the Government is anticipating backlash from carers who lost their jobs as a result of the policy.
In October, the courts rejected an initial judicial review application that challenged the Government's vaccine mandate for workers in CQC-regulated care homes. However, it is now anticipated that if those who want their jobs back struggle to get them back, will seek legal action and a renewed application.
Evidence is insufficient to back mandatory NHS staff vaccination, says House of Lords committee
BMJ 2021; 375 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2957 (Published 03 December 2021)
Dear Editor,
As doctors and health professionals, many of whom work in the NHS, we would like to express our opposition to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination being mandated for any group of people, including health and care workers. We agree with the House of Lords committee that the evidence is insufficient to justify this measure, but the government and Parliament do not appear to be listening and mandatory vaccines for NHS staff looks likely to be passed into law this week.
We do not dispute that covid-19 can be and has been a dangerous infection, and we agree that vaccines are effective in many situations. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness of the covid vaccines, some serious short-term complications and a lack of data on long-term harms. In this situation, it is imperative that people are able to make a fully-informed choice about whether to have the vaccine or not.
It is widely accepted that randomised controlled trials are the only means of providing robust data on the efficacy of medical interventions because observational data is subject to uncontrolled biases. Yet the randomised trials of the covid vaccines lasted for a very short time and were only powered to provide definitive statistical evidence on preventing ‘symptomatic infections’, not on preventing infection per se, hospitalisation or death. The trials also provided no data on whether the vaccines reduce transmission or not—things we have had to learn the hard way, through real world evidence like the rapid spread of the Delta and now Omicron variants.
Results from the randomised vaccine trials published so far suggested the vaccines were effective in reducing symptomatic infections for a few weeks. The average duration of follow-up for people in the first report from the Pfizer trial, on which licensing was based, was only 46 days, for example. [1] The recent report on data from people who had been in the trial for up to 6 months revealed that the mean total duration of follow-up for the primary outcome of the double-blind trial was 3.6 months for those who received the vaccine and 3.5 months for those allocated to placebo. [2] Moreover, only 7% of participants actually remained in the double blind trial for 6 months. [3] Real-world data are not consistent with the trial results, with high case numbers in doubly vaccinated individuals reported from the UK [4] and Israel [5], for example. This suggests either that effects of vaccines wear off quickly, and/or that some bias crept into original trial procedures, possibly due to unblinding caused by vaccine reactions [6] or other procedural irregularities. [7] The same observational data suggests the vaccines may reduce hospital admission and death due to covid infection, but, in the absence of data from randomised trials it is difficult to be certain, since unknown factors may bias the data in either direction.
More alarmingly, third and fourth ‘booster’ shots have not been tested in any randomised trials, and other data on the efficacy and safety of administering further doses are scanty.
In other words, data on the only outcome properly tested in randomised trials, the prevention of cases by two vaccinations, appear unreliable, possibly due to rapidly waning effects or other factors, and other outcomes and procedures have not been investigated in randomised trials, meaning there is no secure evidence either way.
As far as the safety of the vaccines is concerned, it is clear that rare but serious, and potentially fatal adverse effects occur, such as thrombosis and myocarditis, [8] and that these took months to identify. Long-term harms will be difficult to detect due to the short duration of the randomised trials, and will only become apparent in coming years.
There are also no data on groups who might be particularly adversely affected by the vaccine, such as those with, or at risk of autoimmune disorders, and there is little data on adverse effects of booster shots, which is significant since there have long been safety concerns about repeated exposure to mRNA technology. [9] Repeated booster vaccines therefore represent cumulative risk for untested benefit.
For young age groups, in whom covid-related morbidity and mortality is low, and for those who have had covid 19 infection already, and appear to have longstanding immunological memory, [10] the harms of taking a vaccine are almost certain to outweigh the benefits to the individual, and the goal of reducing transmission to other people at higher risk has not been demonstrated securely. [11]
Respecting people’s autonomy and bodily integrity is at the heart of human rights and medical ethics and the data currently available on the vaccines by no means justify over-riding these important principles. More good quality research and access to existing data from the vaccine trials are required for people to make fully-informed decisions about whether to take these vaccines or not. [12] Coercing people to have a covid vaccine, either through the threat of legal sanctions or, in the case of mandates for occupational groups, by depriving people of their livelihoods and careers, is not justified due to the prevailing uncertainty about the overall benefits of the vaccines, the unfavourable risk-benefit ratio for many groups, and, not least, the lack of data on long-term harms.
1. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020;383(27):2603-15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 [published Online First: 2020/12/11]
2. Thomas SJ, Moreira ED, Jr., Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months. N Engl J Med 2021;385(19):1761-73. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 [published Online First: 2021/09/16]
3. Doshi P. Does the FDA think these data justify the first full approval of a covid-19 vaccine? British Medical Journal 2021 23rd Aug 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justi....
4. UK Health Security Agemcy. COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report: Week 48. 2021
5. Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, et al. Waning Immunity after the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Israel. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;385:e85. doi: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2114228
6. Doshi P. Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data. British Medical Journal 2021 4th Jan 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-... (accessed 10th Dec 2021).
7. Thacker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. British Medical Journal 2021;375:n2635. doi: doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635
8. Mevorach D, Anis E, Cedar N, et al. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel. New England Journal of Medicine 2021;385:2140-49. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109730
9. Garde D. Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine. STAT News 2017 10th Jan 2017. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ (accessed 12th Dec 2021).
10. Dan JM, Mateus J, Cato Y, et al. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science 2021;371:(6529):eabf4063. doi: 10.1126/science.abf4063
11. Singanayagam A, Hakki S, Dunning J, et al. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2021 doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00648-4 [published Online First: 2021/11/11]
12. Tanveer S, Rowhani-Farid A, Hong K, et al. Transparency of COVID-19 vaccine trials: decisions without data. BMJ Evid Based Med 2021 doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111735 [published Online First: 2021/08/11]
Competing interests: No competing interests
Increasing number of scientific studies show that the spike protein by itself is bioactive and can be toxic to tissues. The S1 subunit of the spike protein is sufficient to cause tissue damage. These 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 findings are concerning because COVID-19 vaccines also induce production of the spike protein by our own human cells. Moreover, we now know that contents of the mRNA vaccine vials can leave the site of the injection and travel throughout the body. The spike protein and its S1 subunit have also been found to circulate in 70 71 some vaccinated individuals. While damage is expected in an untreated COVID-19 patient, vaccines are 72 administered to healthy individuals. It is therefore paramount to use immunization strategies that use benign viral components. This, however, does not seem to be fulfilled with currently deployed COVID-19 vaccines.
61 Zhou, Y., Wang, M., Li, Y. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein enhances ACE2 expression via facilitating Interferon effects in bronchial epithelium. Immunol Lett. 237:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2021.06.008
62 Ratajczak, M. Z., Bujko, K., Ciechanowicz, A. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Entry Receptor ACE2 Is Expressed on Very Small CD45- Precursors of Hematopoietic and Endothelial Cells and in Response to Virus Spike Protein Activates the Nlrp3 Inflammasome. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 17(1):266–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-020-10010-z
63 Ropa, J., Cooper, S., Capitano, M.L. et al. (2021) Human Hematopoietic Stem, Progenitor, and Immune Cells Respond Ex Vivo to SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 17(1):253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-020-10056-z
64 Chen, I-Y., Chang, S.C., Wu, H-Y. et al. (2010) Upregulation of the chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 via a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike-ACE2 signaling pathway. J Virol. 84(15):7703–12. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.02560-09
65 Nader, D., Fletcher, N., Curley, G.F. and Kerrigan, S. W. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 uses major endothelial integrin αvβ3 to cause vascular dysregulation in-vitro during COVID-19. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253347
66 Colunga Biancatelli, R. M. L., Solopov, P. A., Sharlow, E. R. et al. (2021) The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein subunit S1 induces COVID-19-like acute lung injury in Κ18-hACE2 transgenic mice and barrier dysfunction in human endothelial cells. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 321(2):L477–84. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00223.2021
67 Suzuki, Y. J., Nikolaienko, S. I., Dibrova, V. A. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-mediated cell signaling in lung vascular cells. Vascul Pharmacol. 137:106823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vph.2020.106823
68 Shirato, K. and Kizaki, T. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit induces pro-inflammatory responses via tolllike receptor 4 signaling in murine and human macrophages. Heliyon. 7(2):e06187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06187
69 Grobbelaar, L. M., Venter, C., Vlok, M. et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin(ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19. Biosci Rep. 41(8):BSR20210611. https://doi.org/10.1042/bsr20210611
Regards
Andrew
Email 2: Will Fowles’ staffer’s reply
From: Lucy Gunner <Lucy.Gunner@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:33 AM
To: Andrew
Subject: RE: Boosters
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for emailing Will regarding coronavirus vaccinations.
There is clear data showing a third dose decreases the chances of being hospitalised by up to 90 per cent.
We’ll continue working with public health experts and industry on vaccination requirements.
The best thing Victorians can do to help protect themselves and our health system is get their third vaccination dose as soon as they are eligible.
Yours Sincerely,
Lucy Gunner
Office of Will Fowles MP
Labor Member for Burwood
1342 Toorak Rd, Camberwell VIC 3124
Tel 03 9809 1857
willfowlesburwood 🌐 willfowles.com.au
This office is located on the land of the Kulin Nations
Email 3: Andrew’s response to Will Fowles’ staffer, Lucy Gunner
From: Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 10:15 AM
To: Lucy Gunner <Lucy.Gunner@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Cc: Will Fowles <Will.Fowles@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Boosters
Thanks for your reply Lucy do you have a copy or a link to the data you have referenced (There is clear data showing a third dose decreases the chances of being hospitalised by up to 90 per cent), most scientific articles I read supply references to their statements, unfortunately most politicians and media do not.
Even if the statement you supplied without reference is correct, my point was around risk of which I supplied over 1000 studies published in peer reviewed medical journals documenting the risks of the COVID vaccines.
Where there is risk there must be choice.
At what point does a third dose decreases the chances of being hospitalised by up to 90 per cent and for how long? (do you have any information on this) There are no studies showing the effects of repeated booster doses every 3 months on immune systems or long term effects.
I am not against vaccines, at some point it must be a choice any protection provided by the vaccines wanes quite quickly are you proposing a permanent mandate?
Most democratic societies UK, USA, Denmark, Norway are acknowledging it is an individual choice and unethical and ultimately illegal to mandate a vaccine that does not stop transmission or infection.
I understand that the vaccines do provide some short term protection against hospitalisation at what cost to each person.
A vaccine that provides protection against infection and transmission (these vaccines do clearly not, I think we are beyond that now) may have an argument for mandates but one that is merely providing some protection against hospitalisation, that various other drugs and interventions can provide should not be mandated and is a personal choice. What are your arguments against informed consent?
Are you against respecting people’s autonomy and bodily integrity. It is central to medical ethics and human rights. Article 6 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
The best thing Victorians can do to help protect themselves and our health system is get their third vaccination dose as soon as they are eligible.
This is quite a sweeping statement, are you aware of studies showing appropriate levels of vitamin d are protective against Covid19 is this being promoted by the Victorian government?
Why are the people proposing the mandates not addressing the issues with members of their electorate is it beneath Will to reply, was he even included in your reply?
Looking forward to receiving the data you referenced.
Regards
Andrew
Please read the letter below is this not the opinion of health experts?
We are writing to you as a group of concerned healthcare professionals and scientists regarding the proposal to enforce mandatory Covid-19 vaccination for healthcare staff. We believe such a mandate is unethical, immoral and discriminatory. It would also be ineffective. The data regarding safety and effectiveness of the vaccines do not support such a policy. In this letter, we set out why we believe this to be the case and provide hyperlinks to supporting evidence.
The House of Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published its report on the proposed legislation in November 2021. Several concerns were raised, including whether:
“The benefits are proportionate”; and
“The lack of a thorough and detailed Impact Assessment”.
The vaccines currently in use are not licensed medicines, but have been granted Temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 based on interim results of randomised trials. The trials have been subject to both significant criticism from experts and whistleblowing accusations of poor regulatory oversight and lack of data integrity. The trials were designed only to show a reduction in symptomatic infection, not:
Prevention of infection;
Reduction in severe outcomes or death; or
Reduction of onward transmission.
The initial reports suggested high efficacy in reducing symptomatic infection, which, sadly, has not been borne out by real world evidence. The Pfizer trial indicated a 95% relative risk reduction (“RRR”) in the number of infections. The absolute risk reduction (“ARR”) was far less impressive at 0.7%, and from Israel, the number needed to vaccinate (“NNV”) to prevent one infection was 364. Even this benefit has been shown to last only a matter of weeks before effectiveness wanes significantly: data compiled by the UKHSA show that rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection are consistently higher in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated for all age groups between 18 and 69 (see Table 11). This indicates that vaccination provides very little, if any, ongoing protection against developing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also know that vaccinated and non-vaccinated people carry similar viral loads, indicating comparable levels of infectiousness. If the intention is to prevent infection and sickness absence in the workforce and protect patients from onward transmission, there is no evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers will achieve this. Indeed, with the latest omicron variant, Denmark has shown that the double vaccinated have an increased risk of infection compared to the unvaccinated. With regards to mortality, data published by the FDA in the USA confirmed no reduction in all-cause mortality in the Pfizer trial and this recent analysis of all-cause mortality data in England highlights the uncertainty of vaccine effectiveness at reducing overall mortality.
The Covid-19 vaccines employ novel technology, namely mRNA and Adenovirus vector. There are no data regarding their long-term safety. Even the short-term safety data raise serious concerns. Collectively, we have reported to the MHRA a significant number of serious (including fatal) suspected adverse reactions in our patients. These include, but are not limited to:
Serious thrombotic events;
Spontaneous bilateral renal infarction;
Acute pulmonary haemorrhage;
Sudden recrudescence of malignancy previously in longstanding remission;
Pancytopaenia;
Miscarriage;
Facial swelling; and
Shingles.
A particular concern with the mRNA vaccines is the occurrence of myocarditis, predominantly in young males, and the risk seems to be additive with each subsequent doses administered. Booster vaccines are currently being recommended to all adults in the UK but with no knowledge of any long term impacts on immune function.
It has been known since quite early in the Pandemic that the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 to healthy working age people is akin to that of seasonal influenza. Even the Government’s own website states that “for most people, COVID-19 will be a mild illness”. NHS staff, whether working in primary care, secondary care or the community will already have had significant exposure to aerosolised SARS-CoV-2 and many have contracted it and recovered. These individuals now benefit from broad, durable, natural immunity which is superior to the vaccine mediated immune response. These people stand to gain no benefit from vaccination but are at risk from the known and unknown harms of the vaccines. Indeed, prior infection (as experienced by many NHS staff) may be associated with increased risks of side effects.
Respecting people’s autonomy and bodily integrity is central to medical ethics and human rights. Article 6 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” With regard to consent, the Green Book states “For consent to immunisation to be valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question”. We consider that free and informed consent cannot be given by an individual who is under threat of losing his / her career and livelihood. There is simply no justification for overriding these important principles of bodily autonomy. More worryingly, if medical professionals are forced to accept mandatory medical intervention for themselves, in time will they have to accept it for their patients as well? What safeguards will be in place to protect other groups from coerced and mandated medical treatments?
It has been estimated that in excess of 120,000 NHS workers will leave the NHS rather than be coerced into being vaccinated. Waiting lists in the NHS are already at record levels. These proposals are dangerous and foolhardy in the extreme, given the NHS’s inability to meet current patient needs. Accordingly, we urge you to oppose these proposals on the grounds of them being unethical, immoral and ineffective.
Your sincerely
Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse
Mr Jeff Auyeung, MBBCh, FRCS (Tr & Orth) Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician
Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
Professor Anthony J Brookes, Professor of Genomics and Health Data Science, Leicester University
Dr Elizabeth Burton, MB ChB, Retired General Practitioner
Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner
Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional Medicine Practitioner, GP Trainer
Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner
John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner
Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health (MPH)
Dr Zac Cox, BDS, LCPH, Holistic Dentist, Homeopath
Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist
Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD in Pharmacology, 32 years’ experience in Pharmaceutical R&D
Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD,FRCP,FRACP,FRCPath,FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, St George’s Hospital, London
Dr Sue de Lacy MBBS MRCGP AFMCP UK Integrative Medicine Doctor
Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (Hons), DipPharmMed
Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA (Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor
Dr Christopher Exley, PhD, FRSB, Bioinoganic Chemist
Professor John Fairclough, FRCS, FFSEM, Retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon
Professor Norman Fenton, CEng, CMath, PhD, FBCS, MIET, Professor of Risk Information Management, Queen Mary University of London
Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD. Retired Director of Safety Evaluation, Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham
Dr Charles Forsyth, MBBS, BSEM, Independent Medical Practitioner
Dr Jenny Goodman, MA, MBChB, Ecological Medicine
Mr Paul Goss, MCSP, HCPC, KCMT, Clinical Director, Chartered Physiotherapist
David Halpin MB BS, FRCS, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon (Retired)
Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT Surgeon, London
Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, General Practitioner
Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, Retired
Dr Pauline Jones, MB BS, Retired General Practitioner
Dr Rosamond Jones, MD, FRCPCH, Retired Consultant Paediatrician
Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences
Dr Charles Lane, Molecular Biologist
Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist
Dr Stuart Linke, PhD, MSc, Clinical pychologist
Mr Malcolm Loudon, MBChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS (Gen Surg), MIHM, VR, Consultant Surgeon
Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, Retired Consultant Physician
Dr Kulvinder S. Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn
Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner in out of hours
Dr Julie Maxwell, MBBCh, MRCPCH, Associate Specialist Community Paediatrician
Dr Samuel McBride, MBBCh, BAO, BSc, MSc, MRCP (UK) FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh)
Dr Niall McCrae RMN, PhD Mental Health Researcher and Officer of Workers of England Union
Dr Scott McLachlan, FAIDH, MCSE, MCT, DSysEng, LLM, MPhil, Postdoctoral Researcher
Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine
Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP (UK), General Practitioner
Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, Retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Retired General Practitioner
Mr Colin Natali, BSc(hons) MBBS, FRCS (Orth), Consultant Spinal Surgeon
Jacqueline Parker, RGN, Nursing Studies DIP, Practice Nurse
Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause Specialist
Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD. Postdoctoral Researcher in Microbiology and Immunology
Angus Robertson, Orthopaedic Surgeon
Dr Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor
Dr Jonathan Rogers, MBChB (Bristol), MRCGP, DRCOG, Retired General Practitioner
Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal Surgeon
Dr Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales
Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS
Dr Rohaan Seth, Bsc (Hons), MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist
Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, Retired Doctor
Dr Julian Tomkinson, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner, GP Trainer, PCME
Dr Katherine Tomkinson, BSc, MBChB, DRCOG, MA (Medical Ethics and Law), General Practitioner
Suzanne Tomkinson BSc, MSc, CSci, FIBMS, Senior Biomedical Scientist, Clinical Biochemistry
Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, NHS Clinical Scientist
Mrs Sammi Walden, Healthcare Assistant
Professor Roger Watson, FRCN, FRCP (Edin), FAAN, Professor of Nursing
Dr Colin Westwood, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology
Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor
Dr Julia Wilkens, FRCOG, MD, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
Dr Stefanie Williams, Dermatologist
Katherine Wise, BSc (Hons), Senior Audiologist
Dr Holly Young, BSc, MBChB, MRCP, Consultant Palliative Care Medicine
Email 4: Lucy Gunner’s response to Andrew
From: Lucy Gunner <Lucy.Gunner@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 3:46 PM
To: Andrew
Cc: Will Fowles <Will.Fowles@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Boosters
Hi Andrew,
Thank you, I appreciate this information.
The source of data is ATAGI, the authority responsible for providing advice to government on the medical administration of vaccines available in Australia.
ATAGI has made recommendations on the timing of coronavirus vaccine doses based on current data. You can view a statement here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-the-omicron-variant-and-the-timing-of-covid-19-booster-vaccination. I’ve extracted an excerpt below.
Reducing impacts on the healthcare system
Mathematical modelling of the Australian context also suggests that maximising booster doses for all adults may contribute to mitigating the peak number of severe cases of COVID-19 due to Omicron expected in the coming few months. When expanded (and earlier) delivery of booster doses are used in combination with more extensive public health and social control measures, the most major impacts of Omicron on severe health outcomes and on the Australian healthcare system could be mitigated.
Reduced illness in healthcare workers would also be expected to preserve the capacity of the healthcare system to deliver services. Similarly reduced illness in the community would mitigate against the broader impacts of disease caused by the highly transmissible Omicron variant.
Yours Sincerely,
Lucy Gunner
Office of Will Fowles MP
Labor Member for Burwood
1342 Toorak Rd, Camberwell VIC 3124
Tel 03 9809 1857
willfowlesburwood 🌐 willfowles.com.au
This office is located on the land of the Kulin Nations
Email 5: Andrew’s response to Lucy Gunner
From: Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 5:48 PM
To: Lucy Gunner <Lucy.Gunner@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Cc: Will Fowles <Will.Fowles@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Boosters
Lucy,
Thanks for getting back to me, this is a difficult situation for everyone. I have highlighted below quotes from the ATAGI page you referenced showing there is no conclusive Evidence of the benefit of a booster or what risk of myocarditis the booster presents.
1. The effectiveness of a booster dose to prevent onward transmission of Omicron from infected persons, and the duration of protection afforded by a booster are currently unclear.
2. The impact of reducing the interval between the primary course and booster dose to 3 months on the risk of myocarditis is not yet known.
3. There are currently no data on the risk of myocarditis after a booster dose of the Moderna vaccine
4. There is still little evidence on the incremental benefit of booster doses in protecting against severe disease or reducing onward transmission of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, and on the duration of protection provided by COVID-19 booster doses.
I have also highlighted the section you sent which clearly states Mathematical Modelling ie not real world data or data from trials, Mathematical Modelling has been notoriously inaccurate over the 2 years of the pandemic, we won’t go into that. Vague and inconclusive wording is used in the statement such as estimated, predicted, may, potential, expected.
Again I am not arguing whether the vaccine may provide some benefit it should be open and available to everyone, I am simply stating that it cannot be made mandatory based on the current evidence and there must be choice. It is not up to a politician to remove someone’s ability to earn a wage and provide for their family based on them receiving a medical procedure. Or is the Victorian Labour Party advocating forcing it on people without their consent?
On 23/24 July 2021 Prime Minister made a statement to the media and Australia concerning informed consent. In this statement the PM made it clear that in Australia:
“ … we are all responsible for our own health … That in our country ‘people make their own decisions about their own health and their own bodies AND THAT IS WHY WE DON’T HAVE MANDATORY VACCINATIONS … ”
It is a long-established principle of law that consent cannot be given in circumstances of duress and coercion.
In the Australian Government’s Immunisation Handbook under Section 2.1.3 Valid Consent, it states that for consent to be legally valid “It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.”
Consent to a medical procedure requires the patient or recipient, after being informed of the risks and benefits of the procedure, is able to freely choose to undergo or decline the procedure.
Do you have evidence to the contrary that informed consent does not apply?
May I leave you with this quote from a current leader
“The measure of a society, of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so. It’s whether we recognise rights when it’s difficult. When it’s unpopular.”
“When governments fail to respect people’s rights. We all end up paying.”
Anticipated benefits of an earlier booster dose for protection against COVID-19 due to Omicron
An earlier booster dose is expected to reduce the risk of symptomatic infection, severe illness and death from COVID-19. In combination with enhanced public health and social measures, it is also expected to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on the health system and its the broader impacts on the community.
This is from the official Australian Government Department of Health Website
Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community
The effectiveness of a booster dose to prevent onward transmission of Omicron from infected persons, and the duration of protection afforded by a booster are currently unclear. It is expected a reduction in symptomatic infection will parallel a reduction in transmission. ATAGI will continue to closely monitor emerging data regarding these evidence gaps.
Vaccine associated myocarditis
The impact of reducing the interval between the primary course and booster dose to 3 months on the risk of myocarditis is not yet known. Data from the UK, where more than 21 million booster doses have been administered, have not identified any new safety signals.9
It should be noted that myocarditis appears to be more common after second doses in younger males. As of 12 December 2021, the overall rate of myocarditis for all ages reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is 1.6 (95% CI 1.5 – 1.7) per 100,000 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and 2.5 (95% CI 1.8 – 3.3) per 100,000 doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine given. Preliminary data from people who received a Pfizer booster vaccine at least 5 months after a Pfizer primary course suggest that the risk of myocarditis is not higher after the booster dose than after the second dose.10
There are currently no data on the risk of myocarditis after a booster dose of the Moderna vaccine, but this is expected to be available in coming weeks. More information on myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines is available here.
Uncertainties and evidence gaps
As noted above, the severity of disease caused by the Omicron variant remains uncertain. While few people have been hospitalised with COVID-19 due to Omicron in Australia to date, this may reflect the expected lag between diagnosis and progression to severe disease; it may also reflect the younger population in whom the Omicron variant was first detected.
There is still little evidence on the incremental benefit of booster doses in protecting against severe disease or reducing onward transmission of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, and on the duration of protection provided by COVID-19 booster doses.
ATAGI will continue to closely monitor the situation and review data that informs these key evidence gaps and will update recommendations accordingly.
A mathematical modelling study has examined the relationship between neutralising antibody titres and vaccine effectiveness estimated in epidemiological studies. The investigators predicted that six months after primary immunisation with an mRNA vaccine, efficacy for Omicron is estimated to have waned to around 40% against symptomatic disease, and 80% against severe disease (36.7% [95% CI: 7.7-73], 70.9% [95% CI: 32.9-91.5] and 81.1% [95% CI: 42.1-96] for the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively). A booster dose with an mRNA vaccine has the potential to increase efficacy for Omicron to 86.2% (95% CI: 72.6-94%) against symptomatic infection and 98.2% (95% CI: 90.2-99.7%) against severe infection.
Andrew is still waiting for a response to his last email. As he wrote to me,
“Notice how at no stage do they provide evidence of their statement – ‘There is clear data showing a third dose decreases the chances of being hospitalised by up to 90 per cent.’ And at no stage do they answer any questions I have put forward.”
If you’d like to contact either Will Fowles or Lucy Gunner to demand that they actually answer Andrew’s questions rather than blathering soundbites, and address his well-documented concerns with a detailed, factual and referenced response, contact them at:
Will Fowles <Will.Fowles@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Lucy Gunner <Lucy.Gunner@parliament.vic.gov.au>
Let’s get some representation back into Australia’s representative democracy.
And if you’d like to let Andrew know how much you appreciate his efforts, drop him a note in the Comments below, and I’ll pass it on!
This is brilliant Andrew. I admire not only your knowledge on the subject, but also your tenacity in not just letting those pathetic replies go. The fact that you followed up with even more succinct and damning evidence and references, is truly admirable. God Bless you. Thanks also to Robyn for making this public. Let's see if you get another reply.
If any of these elected representatives are doing a fraction of the research that Andrew is doing they would hang their head in shame...it's so obvious..sadly its not about following the science, but the money. Fantastic effort Andrew and thanks for your continuing work Robyn