NOTICE TO DOCTOR REQUESTING INFORMATION FOR INFORMED CONSENT
A distressed mother asked for my informal help, as she was being bullied by NHS and Social Services to ‘consent’ to covid-vaccination of her adult daughter, (who suffers from a severe learning disability) or face a Court Order to override her rights of guardianship and force vaccination on her daughter.
Readers may be interested in the Notice I drafted. This strategy may be useful to others facing coercion, if they draft a similar notice, amended where necessary. I advise hard copy (printed) preferably and send by Recorded Delivery (Signed For), to prove that the Notice was served, and insist on written answers, not telephone or zoom calls!
In order to give ‘informed consent; you must have all the relevant information to hand, so you are entitled to demand answers before you make a decision one way or the other. Without full disclosure, there can be no lawful consent.
FORMAL NOTICE REQUESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ‘COVID VACCINES’ IN ORDER TO CONSIDER GIVING ‘INFORMED CONSENT’
(1) Do you accept that a professional medical adviser is under a personal duty in law to ensure that the patient (or their guardian, as the case may be) is provided with all the necessary information, including the already known, and the possibly yet-to-be-discovered, risks of these vaccines?
(2) Do you have in your possession reliable data, independently verified, detailing the precise ingredients of each product, i.e. ALL ingredients to be injected, including any ‘proprietary ingredients’ or ‘trade secrets’ which the manufacturers have not disclosed in the documentation available to the public? Do you accept that I cannot give informed consent unless I know the entire contents of these injections, there cannot be any undisclosed ‘trade secrets’?
(3) There have been numerous reports from researchers around the world suggesting that these injections may contain an element of Graphene Oxide. Can you categorically deny these suggestions, given that, in July 2020, published research from China stated: “Due to its unique physicochemical properties, graphene oxide is widely employed in medicine for purposes of photothermal treatment of cancer, drug delivery, antibacterial therapy, and medical imaging. Our work describes the surface modification of graphene oxide and for the first time summarizes that functionalized graphene oxide serves as a vaccine carrier ” (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32531395)
(4) Can I be absolutely assured, therefore, that no element of graphene oxide or ‘hydrogel’ is being deployed in any of these Covid vaccines, whether as an active ingredient, as a carrier agent, or as an adjuvant?
(5) Do you agree that, with clinical trials still incomplete, these Covid vaccines, whatever the merits of their novel technology, must still be regarded as ‘experimental’ at this stage, and, as such, the medium to long-term effects are completely unknown?
(6) Do you concur, therefore, with the caveat added by the FDA to all their covid-injection factsheets, as evidenced by this latest issue (August 2021) “These may not be all the possible side effects of the vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials.’
(7) Given my daughter’s medical condition, what is your assessment of the particular risks to her of suffering Guillain-Barre autoimmune paralysis, or similar adverse events from these, as yet still experimental, vaccines?
(8) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement? If disputed, please explain:
“Researchers in The Netherlands and Germany have warned that Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine induces complex reprogramming of innate immune responses. Little is known about the broad effects the vaccine may have on the innate and adaptive immune responses.”
(May, 2021,source: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx )
(9) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement recently published by Dr. Russell Blaylock, certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer? If disputed, please explain why:
“Of great concern with this vaccine is the fact that the spike protein can easily enter the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) where it can act as a continuous source of microglial activation and subsequent destruction of brain cells and spinal cord cells. In my opinion, there is a significant risk of inducing chronic neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and especially Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), in individuals receiving these vaccines.”
(source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaylock-vaccines-what-you-need-know-informed-consent/5752961 )
(10) Do you concur with (or dispute) the risks highlighted in a research paper published at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270
“The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE (= antibody-dependent enhancement) should be prominently and independently disclosed, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
(11) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following note of caution?
“Aside from questions of safety that attend any vaccine, there are good reasons to be especially cautious for COVID-19. Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines. To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real. As recently as 2016, Dengavxia, intended to protect children from the dengue virus, increased hospitalizations for children who received the vaccine.
(source: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/)
(William A. Haseltine – and before he is dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘spreader of misinformation’, it should be noted that he is a former Harvard Medical School professor and founder of the university’s cancer and HIV/AIDS research departments.
He also serves as chair and president of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International. He has founded more than a dozen biotechnology companies.
So he ought to know what he is talking about here. )
(12) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement of concern by Immunologist J. Bart Classen MD in his research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases?
“RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light. Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered.”
“Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”
(source: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf )
(13) The AstraZeneca product is described in the published UK Govt info for Healthcare Professionals (REG 174) as: “encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vectorSpike (S) glycoprotein”
Can you explain this process, please? Does ‘Recombinant’ involve a process of genetic engineering in the laboratory – if so, why are patients not being informed, as part of ‘informed consent’, that this product contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Is this “vaccine” really an experimental form of gene therapy?
(14) The AstraZenica product lists the following ingredients. Please explain the exact purpose and function of each substance and whether injection into the body carries any potential risks of adverse reactions:
L-histidine
L-histidine hydrochloride monohydrate
magnesium chloride hexahydrate
polysorbate 80 (E 433)
sucrose
disodium edetate dihydrate
(14) The Pfizer mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 product is described in the published UK Govt info for Healthcare Professionals (REG 174) as being:
“ highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2.”
Can you explain this process please? Is this “vaccine” also an experimental form of gene therapy?
(15) The Pfizer product lists the following ingredients. Please explain the exact purpose and function of each substance and whether injection into the body carries any potential risks of adverse reactions:
ALC-0315 = (4-hydroxybutyl) azanediyl)bis (hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
cholesterol
potassium chloride
potassium dihydrogen phosphate
sodium chloride
disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate
sucrose
(16) In particular reference to the question set out in (15) above, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine: Are you aware that this material may be irritating to the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract?
Potassium chloride: Are you aware that this chemical carries a known risk of severe allergic reaction in some recipients, please explain why it is necessary to include in this product?
Monobasic potassium phosphate: Are you aware that intravenous potassium phosphate also carries known risks of severe reactions, so why is this included?
Disodium hydrogen phosphate dihydrate: Are you aware that this substance also risks known side effects, please explain why this has been included?
The above are questions I feel it is my duty to ask, in order to safeguard my daughter’s well-being, so that I can make a proper risk/benefit assessment, prior to consenting to any covid vaccination.
Since these questions will be of legal significance in the event of any unfortunate consequences, should I decide to give consent on the basis of your replies, I must ask, please, that you reply in writing.
(signed)
====================================================================================
UPDATE
Not really surprising, the Doctor made no attempt to answer any of the questions we had put to him!
He said neither he nor the Health Authority could answer questions on the manufacturing and approval of the vaccine! So, a follow up Notice was served, on which his reply is still awaited:
Dear Doctor,
Re. OUR FORMAL NOTICE REQUESTING INFORMATION REGARDING ‘COVID VACCINES’,
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER GIVING OUR ‘INFORMED CONSENT’
We regret that none of the legitimate questions and concerns we have raised with you personally, as GP, have been properly addressed by your letter, so our position remains unchanged.
As stressed in our previous telephone conversation, we have no wish to be confrontational, we are simply exercising what we believe to be our legal and moral rights and duties as parent, carer and guardian of our daughter.
We have taken advice on this, because we felt that we were being wrongly (and unlawfully) rushed and coerced into giving our consent, with, apparently, an implied ‘threat’ from some quarter in the background that if we did not comply quickly, the decision might be taken out of our hands, through an application to Court.
This implied ‘threat’ was, in our view, a gross violation of our rights, as clearly expressed by the GMC in updated guidance, published November 2020:
‘The exchange of information between doctor and patient is essential to good decision making. Serious harm can result if patients are not listened to, or if they are not given the information they need - and time and support to understand it - so they can make informed decisions..
(ref: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent/about-this-guidance )
You may also be aware of the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11: ‘Doctors are under a duty to take reasonable care to make sure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment’
May we respectfully remind you, therefore, that, as the responsible General Practitioner, in recommending this medical treatment for our daughter, you have a personal responsibility to ensure ‘informed consent’, this being a vital part of medical ethics and international human rights law.
‘Such duty extends not only to exercising reasonable care and skill in the treatment of the patient but also to warning the patient of any material risks in the proposed treatment on the basis that people have the right to decide whether or not they will undergo the medical treatment’
‘For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed,’
( https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Consent-to-treatment/ )
You write that you are unable to answer ‘questions dealing with the manufacturing and approval process’. We are not sure which of our original questions you have this difficulty with, but, surely, as the medical professional, you ought to, at least, be able to address the particular questions we have repeated below? These questions relate to our genuine concerns as to material risks to our daughter. They do not seem to require any insight into the manufacturing and approval process?
(1) Do you agree that, with clinical trials still incomplete, these Covid vaccines, whatever the merits of their novel technology, must still be regarded as ‘experimental’ at this stage, and, as such, the medium to long-term effects are completely unknown?
(2) Do you concur, therefore, with the caveat added by the FDA to all their covid-injection factsheets, as evidenced by this latest issue (August 2021)
“These may not be all the possible side effects of the vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials’
(3) Given our daughter’s age and her medical condition, what is your assessment of the particular risks to her of suffering Guillain-Barre autoimmune paralysis, or similar adverse events from these, as yet still experimental, vaccines?
(4) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement? If disputed, please explain:
“Researchers in The Netherlands and Germany have warned that Pfizer-BioNTech’s coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine induces complex reprogramming of innate immune responses. Little is known about the broad effects the vaccine may have on the innate and adaptive immune responses.”
(May, 2021,source: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx )
(5) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement recently published by Dr. Russell Blaylock, certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer.? If disputed, please explain why:
“Of great concern with this vaccine is the fact that the spike protein can easily enter the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) where it can act as a continuous source of microglial activation and subsequent destruction of brain cells and spinal cord cells. In my opinion, there is a significant risk of inducing chronic neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and especially Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), in individuals receiving these vaccines”
(source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaylock-vaccines-what-you-need-know-informed-consent/575296 )
(6) Do you concur with (or dispute) the risks highlighted in this research paper?
(published at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/ )
"The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE (= antibody-dependent enhancement) should be prominently and independently disclosed, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
(7) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following note of caution :?
“Aside from questions of safety that attend any vaccine, there are good reasons to be especially cautious for COVID-19. Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines. To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients.’
(source: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risks-of-rushing-a-covid-19-vaccine/)
(8) Do you concur with (or dispute) the following statement of concern by Immunologist J. Bart Classen MD in his research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases?
“RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light. Vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, late developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered."
“Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous.”
(source: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf )
As previously explained, these are amongst the questions we feel it is our duty to ask, in order to safeguard our daughter’s well-being, so that we can make a proper risk / benefit assessment, prior to consenting to any covid vaccination.
Since the possibility of seeking Court intervention, over our heads, was, wrongly in our view, brought into our original conversation, this particular matter must now be dealt with on a strictly formal, written basis, so that all the evidence will be available, in a permanent and irrefutable form, if, sadly, this is needed at a later date.
We must respectfully again request, please, your written answers to our questions
