There follows a letter from an NHS Clinical Scientist of some 25 years – currently employed at an NHS University Hospital Trust but who has just resigned – to Health Secretary Sajid Javid to tell him why she is quitting over the complicity of the health service in the national scandal that is the Covid vaccine rollout. The letter is presented here anonymously under the pseudonym LTB, but the Daily Sceptic has seen a copy of the original and confirmed LTB’s identity.
January 21st 2022
Dear Hon Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care,
My name is LTB and I am an NHS Clinical Scientist with a quarter of a century of experience, currently employed at an NHS University Hospital Trust. Not for long: I have resigned.
The reasons are numerous and all connected to the COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign.
Like thousands of other healthcare workers, I have had misgivings about these vaccines from the outset, on both ethical and safety grounds.
Although the ethical issue has been sidelined by the current pressing concerns on the safety profile of these vaccines, nevertheless the use of cell-lines from aborted foetuses has been and remains at the forefront of my conscience. As a healthcare professional, I believe that the right to conscientious objection is also a duty of care towards society and, ultimately, protects the very essence of our humanity.
A core principle in healthcare is to ensure that patients are given free access to all information, to enable them to make a proper and informed choice about any treatment. As a scientist, I have been and still am gravely concerned about the Government and NHS misrepresentation of these vaccines as ‘safe and effective’ – a mantra still promoted by our Government and media, despite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating otherwise of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme and worldwide databases for reporting adverse effects. Worryingly, the great majority of GPs have not being raising awareness of this scheme, leading to significant under-reporting and, consequently, under-estimation of the actual situation. I personally have spoken to people who, after experiencing bad reactions to the first dose, have been encouraged by doctors to continue regardless and take the second, with serious consequences for their health. They had never heard of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme and wouldn’t know how to make a report. Misinformation starts from the seniors: I have been told (in writing) by Human Resources senior staff at my hospital that that vaccines have been “licensed”, genuinely oblivious to the fact that MHRA has granted only emergency approval.
I have been appalled by the NHS willingness to trample over the concept of personalised medicine in the promotion of products still in phase three trials. There has been no stratified analysis of the balance of risks and benefits. No scientific reference to real data from the pandemic statistics nor to those of the adverse effects – deaths and life-limiting injuries – reported globally. No mention of the unavailability of medium and long term safety data, which may not be relevant for the elderly but it certainly is for the young. No information about alternative treatments.
This is not the NHS I joined and embraced. Primum non nocere: first, do no harm.
Equally important is the right to bodily autonomy, including the right to refuse any treatment or medication. Enshrined in law for the protection of all human beings, this core principle extends to everybody, patients and healthcare staff alike. The Government mandate, offering NHS workers the alternative between taking an experimental product against their best judgement or lose their livelihood, can hardly be portrayed as ‘free choice’.
I hope it is clear that the motivation of NHS staff across all professions in resisting this coercion is founded on ethical grounds. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical scientists – we all feel that our integrity would be compromised, that the fundamental principle of trust, at the core of our unique relationship with the patients we serve, would be irreparably transgressed; and that this erosion of professional ethics would carry the inherent danger of establishing coercion as an acceptable practice in future, with NHS staff imposing procedures on patients against their will – the victim becoming the perpetrator. From a patient prospective, I know which doctors I will trust when all this is over.
Incidentally, NHS contracts do not specify any requirement of taking part in human experimentation. In any case, human experimentation should be carried out under the safeguards of the Nuremberg Code, which has been sadly violated in all its points during the vaccination campaign.
It is not clear how the vaccination mandate could be justified on rational or medical basis. The justification offered by Government, media and NHS seems to stem from the second mantra of the campaign, ‘protect patients, protect staff’.
In this respect, it has been sad to witness the NHS incapacity or unwillingness to clarify the confusion generated by the interchangeable use of two distinct terms, SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and COVID-19 (the illness). This practice has no doubt contributed to the public misconception of the vaccines. As implied in their name, ‘Covid vaccines’ are not SARS vaccines. This is in line with the product characteristics and the endpoint of alleviating the illness, not preventing it. The confusion has also been compounded by the change in the definition of the term vaccine, to accommodate products otherwise better described as ‘gene therapy’, and misrepresenting them to the public perception.
In any case, the initial hope that they could be effective against infection and transmission has been quashed by the evidence of ‘breakthrough’ cases worldwide. Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated an equivalent viral load in vaccinated and in vaccine-free people once infected by the virus. This can also be found in the Government’s own data, published by Public Health England and now UKHSA.