Reply to - COVID-Status Certification Review - Call for evidence
Question 1
I am an individual who wants to continue to be part of society and allowed to travel of my own free will. I do not wish to be forced to undergo medical interventions in order to participate in society when I am perfectly healthy.
Enforcing a vaccine status/passport scheme that allows or disallows individuals to participate in society at large is by definition mandating vaccines.
As this vaccine is not fully tested, and won’t be for another two years, after the re-challenge tests have been completed, it is classed as an experimental medical intervention. This is why a special dispensation had to be passed to allow it to be distributed, therefore, making it mandatory is against the Declaration of Helsinki.
The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA). It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics. This declaration overrides any national or local laws or regulations and the fundamental principle is, respect for the individual (Article 8), his right to self-determination and the right to make informed decisions (Articles 20, 21 and 22) regarding participation in research, both initially and during the course of the research.
Question 2
A/ Clinical / medical considerations:
My concern here is: There is no scientific evidence that Covid-19 vaccines prevent either infection with or transmission of Sars-CoV-2. Therefore, proof of vaccination does not confirm any proof that a person is any less able to spread Sars-CoV-2 than anyone else. There have already been reports of fully vaccinated individuals suffering from COVID-19 infections.
This has not been properly explained to the public and it is likely that any Vaccine Passport would, by its very existence, imply to the general public that vaccine status does imply non-transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2.
There is no knowledge of how long any effect from vaccines would last beyond 3 months. All Covid-19 vaccines are experimental and no safety trials will be complete before 2023.
There are safety concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccines that must be considered and this is a relevant part of the ethical consideration of Vaccine Passports because people could be made to forego their human rights (The Declaration of Helsinki and Nuremberg Code) for something not proven to be safe and in essence experimental.
These safety concerns include:
There is limited short-term safety data and no long-term safety data to rule out late-onset side effects, including many for which doctors and scientists have grave concerns, such as, autoimmune disease, neurological conditions, infertility or cancers, pathogenic priming and molecular mimicry.
Many of the Covid-19 vaccines are based on completely novel technology, never previously used in humans, therefore, no long-term safety can be inferred from past experience.
Up until 7 March 2021, the total number of reported side effects for Covid-19 vaccines in the UK is 330,063 (Pfizer BioNTech 100809, Oxford AstraZeneca 228337, Unspecified 917) and 534 fatalities (Pfizer BioNTech 237, Oxford AstraZeneca 289, Unspecified 8).
We have no idea how many side effects and deaths are being missed. The nearest comparison we have is with the VAERS database in the USA where studies have suggested that only 1% of the true number of side effects are ever reported to the database (Lazarus 2007). There are still many unknowns concerning the novel COVID-19 vaccines and we cannot in any true scientific sense claim that they are safe.
Antibody-dependent enhancement has not been addressed in any of the clinical trials in humans. It causes an exaggerated immune response on exposure to coronaviruses following vaccinations, leading to more severe illness.
Certain groups of people could become more hesitant to accessing medical care. We already know that late or non-presentation to hospitals and GPs has led to a rise in morbidity and mortality. The risk of being discriminated against, or the fear of it, could make this problem much worse.
B/ Legal considerations:
It is completely unethical and unlawful to bring in any measure that puts pressure on an individual to submit themselves to a medical intervention, particularly if that intervention is experimental and the long-term safety profile is unknown.
Any form of health status or vaccine passport breaches current human rights and equality laws.
International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 prohibit measures that are discriminatory and impede International travel.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed resolution 2361 of 2021 on 27 January 2021, in which it was stated:
Paragraph 7.3.1 - ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves.
Paragraph 7.3.2 - ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.
The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights protects an individual's bodily autonomy, the right to informed consent and the right to refuse medical interventions, without penalty or restriction. It states that any preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention must only be carried out with the prior free, and informed consent of the person concerned based on adequate information. The consent should where appropriate be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. Consent that is manufactured via media propaganda is not informed consent.
Being restricted from different parts of society because of a lack of willingness to undergo a test or medical intervention directly contravenes these Human Rights. By the very existence of a vaccine or immunity passport, there would be Implicit coercion on behalf of the regulators.
C/ Operational / delivery considerations:
The rolling out of a Vaccine or Immunity Passport would by its very nature mean that all of the other considerations come into question. It couldn't be rolled out without compromising privacy, it would lead to inequities, and would be a breach of human rights. Whether digital or on paper, people would be submitting to their health status no longer being private wherever the Vaccine Passport was used.
D/ Considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme:
Again, this will lead to unfair discrimination and is without doubt coercion on a massive scale which is in direct contradiction to The Council of Europe’s statements spoken about above. The vaccine has not been shown to prevent transmission or infection which negates any reason that venues would have to impose vaccine restrictions.
E/ Considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme:
There are no studies that prove that the vaccine prevents transmission or infection, therefore, it would be coercion based on 'zero evidence' to force them to undergo a medical intervention against their will whilst using the threat of denying their right to earn a living.
To give employers the power to discriminate on this basis is unlawful. According to ACAS (Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service), no employer can force an employee to have a medical test or vaccination as it violates individual human rights and autonomy over their bodies.
F/ Ethical considerations:
Everything discussed here has an ethical component to it. Specifically, Vaccine Passports would be discriminatory because only those that are deemed to be immune from the 'right' test or the 'right' vaccine would gain the right status. Naturally acquired immunity after Covid-19 appears to be long lasting, whereas lasting, or indeed any, immunity after treatment with Covid-19 vaccines has not been shown. Yet perversely, the immunised individual would be the one who gains their 'pass' to freedom and the naturally immune person would be discriminated against.
Professor Allyson Pollock has detailed how unethical the mass screening of a healthy population for Covid-19 with a test is. The PCR or rapid flow test is not designed to be used in that way and contradicts many of the requirements of a valid screening test, therefore how can it possibly be endorsed for use as part of an immunity passport? Only a qualified doctor, after a physical examination, has the authority to make a diagnosis.
Additionally, With regard to political manipulation of science, it is stated in a BMJ editorial in December 2020, we cannot allow the "Politicisation, corruption and suppression of science" to carry on (Abbasi 2020). Furthermore, the political involvement in medicine has resulted in the mishandling of the pandemic that is likened to murder on a vast scale (Abbasi 2021). Vaccine or any kind of immunity passports would be continuing this dangerous trend.
G/ Equalities considerations:
The term equality is being misused. Access to an experimental vaccine is being touted as equality, instead of being seen as targeting the most vulnerable communities with an experimental vaccine.
True equality would be looking at the billions of pounds in debt that have been accrued as a result of the lockdown and consultation costs for considering vaccine passports and testing asymptomatic people. Instead, that money should have been used on supporting the NHS to supply thoroughly evidence-based healthcare such as making sure all those at risk have free access to health care, Vitamin D, nutritious food and clean air and water.
People unwilling or unable, for a variety of reasons, to have Sars-CoV-2 tests or vaccinations will not be able to 'prove' their health status, thus having their basic freedoms de facto restricted. This could include discriminating against people because of their beliefs, religion, medical status, age, gender or race. Examples of this discrimination have already occurred when a 4-year-old boy with autism was removed by Spirit Airlines (BBC 17th March).
Vaccine-immunity Passport’s risk enshrining that discrimination into law. This would undermine the right to health and bodily autonomy, as well as being against the rights of the population as a whole.
Disproportionately segmenting society with these passports would lead to a breach of the rights we have to equality and non-discrimination.
Labelling people based on their supposed Covid-19 status (testing or vaccine) may lead to a two-tier society as warned by the Information Commissioner.
Such labelling of people is a clear concern and it is clear to see how discrimination can even lead to genocide by looking at Dr Gregory Stanton's "The 10 Stages of Genocide". Classification, symbolisation and discrimination is seen in stages 1,2 and 3. The passports and labelling may be used to exacerbate conflicts between groups of citizens with a potential for violence.
H/ Privacy considerations:
People have a right to a private life. A mandatory vaccine passport takes that away. People should be able to privately choose whether or not they want to have a test (that doesn't even fulfil the Wilson-Jungner criteria for testing) and whether or not they want to have an experimental vaccine. People should also be able to choose when and where they share private information and have the right to keep personal information private if they so wish.
Question 3
Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the COVID-status certification review?
It is essential to include the fact that the PCR test has been incorrectly used as a stand-alone diagnostic tool and at the average Ct values used during the pandemic (26.4) it has a 40% false-positive rate. For some individuals who have tested positive with higher than average Ct values this false-positive rate is as high as 97% meaning they are not infectious and are in fact recovering from a past infection (see government and WHO guidelines).
The Government needs to stop the mass testing of asymptomatic people and referring to anyone who tests positive as a 'case' as apart from the massive unreliability of the tests with the aforementioned false-positives, testing positive does not mean one has an ongoing Covid 19 infection. The Government needs to legislate against the Vaccine passport or any other discriminatory action. A new Medical Freedom Statute should be written to strengthen our human rights instead of weakening them via a discriminatory passport scheme.
The Government needs to stop the mass testing of asymptomatic people and referring to anyone who tests positive as a 'case' as apart from the massive unreliability of the tests with the aforementioned false-positives, testing positive does not mean one has an ongoing Covid 19 infection. The Government needs to legislate against the Vaccine passport or any other discriminatory action. A new Medical Freedom Statute should be written to strengthen our human rights instead of weakening them via a discriminatory passport scheme.