appraisal record of funding Covid19 vaccines

Bartholomeus Lakeman made this Freedom of Information 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.

The request was refused by Department of Health and Social Care.

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
You have stated that there is a rigorous licencing regime ensures that safety is of paramount importance. Which assumes that the committee funding or purchasing Covid19 vaccines has a record of that it assessed that said vaccines do fulfil/reach: (a) The appraisal criteria for general medications and its clinical and regulatory milestones; (b) The appraisal criteria of HM Treasury’s Green Book A2.46, and (c) The precaution principle: Bearing in mind that 281 UK citizen died from the Swine flu, and 6 million had Pandemrix causing 1000 people to be significant damages, e.g. narcolepsy (120) and myelitis. So, in case this would be a vaccination of 60m citizens then 10,000 could be long-term or permanently damaged. Whilst about 7% of its recorded deaths died (±3,300: 50 per million) of covid19 alone: a disease with a MOD of about 80 yrs. of age.

Under above assumtions and FOIA 2002 I am asking whether your appraisals to fund/purchase Covid19 vaccines did include the evidences of that said vaccine:
1) used the standard animal tests (ferrets or mice) and which results have been fully disclosed;
2) causes a sufficient anamnestic response;
3) protects sufficiently (…%) against a SARS-CoV-2 infection;
4) is prophylactic against another Covid-19 infection;
5) reduces sufficiently (…%) the severity of Covid-19 symptoms;
6) prevents sufficiently (…%) serious Covid-19 complications;
7) reduces sufficiently (…%) the risk of hospitalisation;
8) reduces covid-19 mortality to less than 50 per million;
9) will end and prevent the ‘Covid19 pandemic’;
10) adverse health risks do not include serious and medically significant symptoms;
11) its gene edited mRNA (if used) for human vaccine application has been approved;
12) its gene edited mRNA (if used) is safer than genetically modified food;
13) does not “enhance” the pathogenicity of the virus, or causes antibody-dependent enhancement;
14) provides neither adjuvant activity nor inhibit antigen expression: affecting the immune response;
15) does not induce type I interferon responses associated with inflammation, autoimmunity, myelitis, blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation;
16) is approved for use under any circumstances that are not explicitly experimental;
17) health benefits out weights that of its adverse health risks: this for various age groups;

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

Thank you for your email.

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 opinion 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.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team
Department of Health and Social Care

show quoted sections

Department of Health and Social Care

Our ref: DE-1275044 

   

Dear Mr Lakeman,  
   
Thank you for your correspondence of 20 November and 2 December, about the
appraisal record of funding COVID-19 vaccines and PCR tests for
COVID-19.  

 

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.  

 

The Act does not cover unrecorded information that officials may remember,
opinions that officials might have, official advice (apart from past
advice the Department of Health has given, where a record of this has been
kept) or requests for an official policy statement (again, apart from past
policy statements, where a record has been kept).  There is no obligation
under the FOI Act for public authorities to create new information. 

 

As the Department of Health and Social Care is currently receiving an
extremely high volume of enquiries due to the ongoing coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic, we are only able to provide an individual response to
the most sensitive and urgent cases.  

 

Although the Department recognises the importance of each concern and
would ordinarily respond to queries individually, the current
circumstances have required a temporary change in the method of handling
correspondence. 
 

The Department is, however, continuing to record all the correspondence
that it receives so that it is able to track the main issues being raised
by the public. 

 

If you consider your situation to be of a particularly sensitive or urgent
nature that does require a bespoke response, please contact the Department
again using ‘Sensitive’ and quote the case reference at the top of your
letter. We will, if deemed appropriate, aim to send a response to the
majority of such correspondence within 18 working days. However, please be
aware that due to the levels of enquiries we are receiving, there may be a
delay in us responding to correspondence.   

 

We appreciate that this is not the response you were hoping for, but I
hope it is clear why it is necessary. 

 
Yours sincerely,  
   
Aymee Smith 
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries 
Department of Health and Social Care 

  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 
Please do not reply to this email. To contact the Department of Health and
Social Care, please visit the [1]Contact DHSC section on GOV.UK 
 
To receive news about DHSC: [2]sign up to our monthly newsletter 

 

 

 

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Any views expressed in this
message are not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social
Care. Please note: Incoming and outgoing email messages are routinely
monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic
communications.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
2. http://r1.surveysandforms.com/4c3zqo08-a...

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Health and Social Care's handling of my FOI request 'appraisal record of funding Covid19 vaccines'.

For the Govt. /DHSC to award contracts it is under the obligation to follow the rules, terms and principles of various legal regulations, e.g., Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR), Public Law, Equal Duty and Transparency, HM Treasury Green Book, Art 107 Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Due to said obligation; the Govt. /DHSC has to have a record of the conditions, the reasons, and the weighing up of its criteria for deciding to make such contracts.

However, it appears that under the Corona Act 2020, the Govt. /DHSC has awarded contracts to various private companies with whom personal members it has such a pre-existing relationship that the Govt. /DHSC decided to award said contracts whilst discharging themselves (without public consent) from their obligations to the rules, terms and principles of said regulations. Contracts which involve about 11 billion pound which have been credited by the taxpayers who have to suffer grave injuries due to the Corona Act and its private contracts.

Examples of such private companies are Abingdon Health, UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC), BBI Solutions, Oxford University, CIGA Healthcare, Ayanda Capital, AstraZeneca, GKS(B), and Pfizer. And it appears that many of these contracts, made under the exemption of said obligation, resulted (or are likely to result) in the purchase of products which are unfit for purpose. Mistakes which are to be anticipated when said legal obligations are skipped: mistakes which put the public health at risk: mistakes made under illegal circumstances which the Govt /DHSC is seeking to obscure by not answering certain critical FOI requests, e.g., FOI #712098 and FOI 20/504.

In case the DHSC does not answer the detailed queries in this FOI about the quality and the risks of the novelty vaccines; the DHSC is confirming the above-mentioned illegal practice.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

As has been previously explained to you, your correspondence has not been handled as a freedom of information request and is therefore not subject to an internal review. Should you wish to complain about the response you received, you may do so at the following link: https://contactus.dhsc.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team
Department of Health and Social Care

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FreedomofInformation,
This refusal is DHSC’ confession of having breached the rules, terms and principles of various regulations, e.g., Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR), Public Law, Equal Duty and Transparency, HM Treasury Green Book, Art 107 Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). And it has confessed that the Govt. has awarded Pfizer, just like other private companies e.g., Abingdon Health, Ayanda Capital, a contract whilst treating the Public need as a political- and/or commercial- commodity.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman