Violation of Informed Consent UK Enquiry

ANNA Frances (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Department of Health and Social Care

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

ANNA Frances (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

My request for a prompt reply please for my enquiry:
Please provide proof of the manner of Informed consent that has been and is carried out to all the millions of UK people -ie at what point were they all shown the Yellow cards reports -and if they were shown was that before or after the vaccines? This revealing of adverse effects is required by law to comply legally with Informed consent.

The UK Government's COVID-19 vaccination programme is now in full swing and the general public is being bombarded with the official line that to stop the COVID-19 pandemic and regain their freedom, people must be vaccinated. In fact they are told they must be vaccinated twice. Of course the BBC has been one of the strongest repeaters of the official government line, and the BBC proudly boasted on 23 March 2021 that:
Almost 28 million people in the UK have received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine - part of the biggest inoculation programme the country has ever launched.
In a race against a faster-spreading variant of the virus, ministers have pinned their hopes of easing a third national lock down on vaccinating as many adults as possible by summer.
Reading the second BBC line, we can see this carefully crafted sentence ramps up the fear, by warning us of "a faster-spreading variant of the virus", and drops in hope as in "hopes of easing third national lock-down." Thus in one sentence the BBC suggests to the mind of the reader that to stop a faster spreading variant of the virus and to regain 'normal-life' and freedoms, we must enthusiastically join the government's vaccination programme.
Next the BBC reinforces the "you must be vaccinated" line by targeting elderly people - those aged 70 and over - with the idea that they could die - "these groups account for 88% of deaths so far."
The UK government aims to offer a first vaccine dose to about 32 million people in nine priority groups by 15 April.
The programme in England is now inviting those aged 50 and above to book appointments after the first four groups - those aged 70 and over, care home residents, healthcare workers and people required to shield - were offered a jab by mid-February.
These groups account for 88% of deaths so far.

What the BBC, and indeed all the UK mainstream media, do not tell their readers, are the true risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccinations being offered. Perhaps we should not be surprised because neither does the NHS, the Government, The Department of Health, nor the government's specialist scientific advisors that comprise the SAGE team.
This omission is extraordinary, since the NHS states quite clearly that anyone receiving medical treatment and or medication should be able to make informed of the benefits and risks of the medical procedure and medication offered. The NHS defines this as the ability to make an 'Informed Choice.' Consent Forms.001.jpeg

The COVID-19 vaccination consent form above states "Like all medicines, vaccines can cause side effects. Most of these are mild and short term, and not everyone gets them. Please read the product (vaccine) information for more details on the vaccine and possible side effects by searching Coronavirus Yellow Card. You can also report suspected side effects on the same website or by downloading [the] Yellow Card App."
With carefully crafted words, and the obvious application of behavioural psychology, the leaflet leaves the reader with the impression that the vaccine only produces 'mild short term effects', and it reinforces this idea by failing to even mention the long lists of serious side effects which are listed on the MHRA Yellow Card page, but even then, require considerable searching before the direct link to the data sheets can be found.
As the NHS guidance for 'Operational Considerations of Immunisation' states in the second bullet in the image below: "The 'informed consent' should be recorded (this is a required field on the Pinnacle Point of Care system). The patient should be provided with written information about the vaccination." Vaccine Informed Consent .001.jpeg

From the above there can be no doubt that the NHS knows and promotes that patients should be able to make 'informed decisions' before consent to any medical intervention, including vaccination. Yet it is very clear from those attending vaccination centres that the staff only speak of mild side effects, and do not provide people with the MHRA Yellow Card Adverse Effects data, even though this covers very serious effects including anaphylaxis, clotting, strokes, heart attacks, neurological problems, blindness, deafness and death.
To add to the NHS deception, those receiving a vaccination are only handed the manufacturers vaccine data sheet after they have received the vaccination. Could this be because after they have taken the vaccine very very few people read the manufacturer's data. If they did of course they would read at least some of the serious side effects, and most importantly would be alerted to the additional risks presented by those who have pre-existing medical conditions and / or allergies.

"What do the public get told then?", is probably the question that comes to the reader's mind. The answer is not a lot. The NHS has this to say:
The vaccines approved for use in the UK have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness set out by the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through all the clinical trials and safety checks all other licensed medicines go through. The MHRA follows international standards of safety.
Other vaccines are being developed. They will only be available on the NHS once they have been thoroughly tested to make sure they are safe and effective.
So far, millions of people have been given a COVID-19 vaccine and reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare. No long-term complications have been reported.
We consider the last sentence in the paragraph above to be a deliberately misleading lie, which many would regard as criminal, in that the reality is that a great many people have suffered, and are suffering, very unpleasant and dangerous side effects from the vaccine. In fact all of the adverse side effects stated in the MHRA data base. And again we state here that those side effects include death, heart attacks, abortions, deafness, blindness, clotting, adverse effects of the immune and nervous systems, and many many others.
"Surely that cannot be true?" Is perhaps a likely and immediate response from many people who have, to date, only been informed on vaccine matters by the UK Government, NHS, BBC and other mass media and press outlets. Unfortunately it is true, and it is the government's own data that says so. Data which is deliberately hidden from all those who do not search for it.
Look at these links on the Yellow Cards section under Covid19.
How many people even know they are there?????
Vaccine Analysis Profile - Pfizer/BioNTech
Vaccine Analysis Profile - Oxford University/AstraZeneca
Vaccine Analytics Profile - brand unspecified

Yours faithfully,


Department of Health and Social Care

Our ref: DE-1321602
Dear Ms Frances,
Thank you for your correspondence of 9 April about vaccination against
COVID-19 and personal choice. I have been asked to reply.

The Freedom of Information Act only applies to recorded information such
as paper or electronic archive material.  As your correspondence asked for
general information, rather than requesting recorded information or
documentation, it did not fall under the provisions of the Act.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government has been
involved in the global search for a vaccine. The Government has now
accepted the recommendations from the independent Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to authorise three COVID-19 vaccines for
use, including Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Moderna. This
follows months of rigorous clinical trials and a thorough analysis of the
data by experts at the MHRA, who have concluded that all three vaccines
meet the regulator’s strict standards of safety, quality, and

The Government has no plans to make the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. The UK
currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations. The
Government’s objective is to vaccinate as many people as possible, in line
with the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
The Government will continue to provide clear information to the public,
encouraging people to seek the NHS’s advice so that they have the right
information to make an informed choice.

From the beginning of the outbreak, the Government’s policies have been
guided by the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies,
which is led by the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer for
England, and the response is kept under constant review.

It is essential that everyone continues to follow government guidance,
whether they have had the vaccine or not, to protect the NHS and save
lives. People must follow the rules to stop the spread of the virus.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
Anthony Moses
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health and Social Care

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Ms Frances,

Thank you for your further email.

As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act only applies to recorded information such as paper or electronic archive material. As your correspondence asked for general information and an explanation rather than requesting recorded information or documentation, it did not fall under the provisions of the Act. It will be answered as general correspondence in due course.

You may find it helpful to refer to the Information Commissioner's 'How to access information from a public body' webpage. It includes advice for requesters on how to word requests to get the best result. Future correspondence is less likely to be refused if framed in accordance with these guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team
Department of Health and Social Care

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir