A reader and former lawyer recently lodged a complaint about what she regarded as unethical inducement to attend a vaccine ‘fun day’ and receive free food in return for being jabbed. You can read the Council’s response and her reply below:
Dear Mr. W.
Thank you for your response.
I regret that I am dissatisfied with your justification, and you have certainly not resolved my complaint.
Your use of the word ‘approved’ is misleading, as the medical procedure to which you refer, erroneously described as a ‘vaccine’ (it is neither a vaccination nor an immunisation in the proper medical-legal sense of such terminology) is only being administered under an Emergency Use Authorisation. As such, it is not approved/licensed by the MHRA, as the products are still undergoing safety trials, scheduled to continue until 2023,and the longer-term risks are still completely unknown.
The treatment currently being administered by the NHS and so enthusiastically promoted by the Council is, therefore, experimental, and your actions must be judged in this context.
You should also be aware of the MHRA Yellow Card system data, already recording 1400 deaths and an alarming account of life-changing adverse events attributed to reaction to ‘vaccination’, including blindness, blood clots, paralysis, MS, and stillbirths. So, from the published information, this is definitely not ‘a walk in the park’ as your poster would suggest.
I can do no better than refer you and your colleagues to the enclosed document just issued by https://doctors4covidethics.org/ (doctors and scientists from 30 countries, seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety and human rights in response to COVID-19) [See file below.]
In particular, I draw your attention to their concluding remarks:
“Above, we quoted Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s warning that early reports on clotting-related incidents and fatalities were likely no more than the “tip of the iceberg.” That iceberg is now in plain sight. America’s Frontline Doctors announced that, as of July 2021, almost 55,000 vaccine-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. alone. Based on sworn affidavits in their possession, this independent not-for-profit organization has filed for injunctive relief to revoke the emergency use authorization for all of the vaccines [51].
Considering such a staggering number of victims, it may seem that all ethical standards have been suspended, and that a human life no longer matters. Eventually, however, sanity and reason will reassert themselves, and a day of reckoning will come.”
You write: ‘No bribery or coercion is involved’
I disagree. The advertisement clearly offers the benefit of ‘free food’ to those who volunteer for the experimental injection, and, conversely, refuses that benefit to those who remain ‘vaccine hesitant’. In my opinion (as a retired lawyer) the clear intention of this advertisement is to sway or influence a decision or process, and, in this sense, the inducement amounts to a bribe. You were targeting young, impressionable folk, whose judgment may be manipulated by the impression that getting ‘jabbed’ is a no-risk fun-filled event – food, drink, music, dancing, as per the illustrations on the poster.
This portrayal of an experimental medical treatment, with the already known plus as yet unknown, risks, as ‘fun’ is, in my submission, highly unethical.
You imply that you are following the NHS. If the Council was doing so passively, by providing use of premises etc., no problem, the NHS bears responsibility, but here the Council has gone a step further, by themselves promoting the ‘event’ and offering inducements to steer young minds into the desired direction: (from the advertisement)
- Today join us at our summer vaccine festival
- 1st & 2nd Pfizer jabs – jabs under a marquee – don’t worry about the weather
- free food voucher when getting jab for on site trucks incl. Taiwanese Bao boxes & vegan options
- No appointment needed, everyone welcome
By doing this, the Council, in my submission, now bears personal responsibility, by reference to Article 1 of the Nuremberg Code, in relation to experimental medical interventions: ‘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’
I would argue that Tower Hamlets Council have themselves engaged in the experiment and thus cannot, in law, shift their personal responsibility onto the NHS (as ‘just following orders’) so the Council may be liable for any subsequent injuries, as those who were induced to participate were not properly cautioned before attending, thus negating informed consent.
Yours sincerely
Mrs G.H.
Read the original complaint and the advertising poster here: COMPLAINT-dated-29-July-2021-ref-30350293
From the Doctors for Ethics: Vaccine-Risk-Benefit_updated-August-2021