Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
Reviewing the covid19 vaccines protocols show that none of their manufactures assume that the vaccine will prevent a covid19 infection. Whereas their criteria for approval is the difference in 'symptoms' between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and non-infection. In addition to that, some COVID-19 vaccine trials are using, instead of a truly biologically inert substances, e.g. saline, other vaccines as “placebo”; which makes it easy to hide vaccine side effects. E.g.
a) AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine AZD1222 (Study Start Date: 17 Aug. 2020 Estimated Study Completion Date 5 Oct. 2022) its interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients; extreme healthy individual between 18 and 30 yrs. The vaccine will be a success if 12 (±18% of 50) or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 (±80%) in the 25-person control group. The minimum qualification for a “case of COVID-19” amounts to just one positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms, such as headache, fever, cough or mild nausea. So, according to its protocols its vaccine trials are only looking to see if it reduces symptoms such as that of the common cold.
b) As a “placebo” is AstraZeneca (AZ) using injected meningococcal vaccine.
c) The third way by which AZ is masking potential side effects is by administering the vaccine along with Paracetamol which subjects receive every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation. As without Paracetamol around one-third of people vaccinated with its vaccine experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness. Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches.
d) AZD1222 trial has documented at least two cases of transverse myelitis (severe inflammation of the spinal cord), due to which AstraZeneca halted temporarily its trial on 6 Sep. Yet MHRA (A. Pollard) allowed AZ to resume its trial on 12 Sep. And a month later, its trial resulted into 1 death.
e) According to the above: the morbidity and mortality risk of AZ Covid19 vaccine is about 100 x higher than that of a young adult’ Covid19 case.

In accord with the abovementioned facts: Please provide the evidence in support of that:
1) M. Hancock, C. Whitty, A. Pollard, colleagues and DHSC can justifiably state that said AZ vaccine AZD1222 will prevent serious COVID-19 complications;
2) AstraZeneca vaccine AZD1222 is adequate enough to prevent and stop the ‘covid19 infection’, and to be classified as a covid19 vaccine;
3) AZ vaccine can safely be enforced as a mass inoculation, and that it justifies its Harmless clausula;
4) Said AZ vaccine was justifiably purchased for several billion pounds or more.

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 ("evidence in support") 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

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FreedomofInformation,
Whereas this FOI part which includes the questions and its heading; is asking for answers that are more of an opinion than a recorded fact; It received an error message.
Therefore please replace this part with the following:

Please provide, from the Govt. negotiation to purchase and/or fund the Covid19 vaccines, e.g. AZ vaccine AZD1222 and NCT04400838, Moderna, Novalis, etc: the recording or the evidence of that:
1) The negation agreements do these include that the vaccine
a) is causing an anamnestic response;
b) is a prophylactic treatment against Covid-19;
c) will protect against a SARS-CoV-2 infection;
d) will prevent serious Covid-19 complications;
e) will fulfil the criteria to be a covid19 vaccine?
f) will reduce, for those over the age 60Yrs. their covid-19’ CFR to less than 1.3%;
g) will reduce, for those under the age 60Yrs. their covid-19’ CFR to less than 0.03%;
h) will reduce covid-19 mortality to less than 93 per million (e.g. in Germany);
i) will end the ‘Covid19 pandemic’.

2) The safety profile rate of said purchased or funded vaccine e.g. AZ vaccine: its potential adverse health risks -vs- its described health benefits: Has this been recorded, and calculated according to the standards for general medications, and does it reach/fulfil clinical and regulatory milestones?

3) Said above safety profile rate is it such that with scientifically calculated probability said vaccine can be safely enforced as a mass inoculation, and does it justify its Harmless clausula?

4) In case none of the above can be positively answered: Will the Govt withdraw the funding of said vaccines?

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

Thank you for your further email.

Your correspondence still does not fall under the provisions of the Act and 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 requests are less likely to be refused if framed in accordance with these guidelines.

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/off...

Yours sincerely,

FOI Team
Department of Health and Social Care

show quoted sections

Department of Health and Social Care

Our ref: DE-1269647  
   
Dear Mr Lakeman,  
   
Thank you for your correspondence of 28 October about your request for
information. 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. 
 
I am sorry I cannot be more directly helpful. 
 
Yours sincerely,  
   
Noor Safi  
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries 
Department of Health and Social Care 
  

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
This request under FOIA 2002 is about whether your negotiations for funding or purchasing Covid19 vaccines included the details of said vaccines' purpose, effectiveness, and safety profile. It either preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or reducing its symptoms and/or its mortality or MODE age of death; the rate of said prevention or reductions (as for the different age groups); and its risk factors to health.
And this FOI asks whether you intend to follow-up and verify these details during the vaccine trails; and in case these show not to be effective and safe whether you will withdraw said funding or purchase.
Whereas the European Ted published that the UK-Govt-MHRA seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) to ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed: out of the precaution principle; you must have a record of said requested details.
Whereas the Govt has planned to coerce -or put people under a duress- to accept said vaccine; under the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg convention, you are obliged to provide the sought details of this FOI request. Under said declaration and convention; your refusal to do so implies your acceptance of an internal review.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

FreedomofInformation, Department of Health and Social Care

Dear Dr Lakeman,

Thank you for your further email. Your correspondence was not handled as a freedom of information request because it did not meet the requirements of the FOI Act. Therefore, it is 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

Department of Health and Social Care

Our ref: DE-1272305  
   
Dear Mr Lakeman,  
   
Thank you for your correspondence of 4 November about your request for
information. 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. 
 
I am sorry I cannot be more directly helpful. 
 
Yours sincerely,  
   
Noor Safi  
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries 
Department of Health and Social Care 
  

show quoted sections

Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,
This FOI has been modified and reposted to you on the 4th and 20th November.

Whereas the Viability to the vindication of human rights; demands objectivity and impartial reasoning, and
as Law includes the Dialectics of different and oppositional arguments, and for to come to an informed consent to vaccination: you have to provide the info about whether the covid19 vaccines are a genuine vaccine or are an inoculative medicine/treatment, and the info about its pro and cons.

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman