This letter from a consultant in the NHS, published by the British Medical Journal, is worth printing in full (bold mine), without comment. None needed.
“Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?
I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.
Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.
Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?
Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.
Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.
I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid. Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.
What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?”
Here is another letter from GP, Dr Teck Khong. It is one of a few (very few) which actually rationalises the decision to refuse the ‘vaccine’ on sound medical, ethical and scientific grounds, in response to an article which bizarrely seeks to argue the case for staff getting the highly experimental, emergency use only, demonstrably harmful and largely unnecessary ‘vaccine’ on exactly the same grounds!
When I was offered Covid vaccination by my GP, I asked him which it was he was offering me. He thought they were all the same until I explained that there are 7 technological approaches being employed in the making of the 214 vaccine candidates that were in the pipeline or had reached emergency authorisation in December 2020. This impression of homogeneity has been allowed to be glibly glossed over in the mass immunisation programme.
Equally, it is disingenuous to give the public the impression that there are no potential long term sequelae, no more than is the dearth of information that makes the ethical requirement of informed consent a mockery given the relentless and coercive push of the mass immunisation programme.
We in the medical profession should remain not only vigilant to adverse events in the aftermath of vaccination but must also be advocates of our patients in timely intervention with the most appropriate medicines for any given clinical stage of illness presentation. Additionally, we must continue to support one another in the understanding of the pathophysiology of causally related adverse events so we are enabled to define with greater accuracy the risk factors of the vulnerable. Indeed, it would appear that many may not require vaccination while some are peculiarly susceptible not only to SARS-CoV-2 but to developing serious reactions to certain classes of the Covid vaccines.
Dr Teck Khong
Past President of BMA Leicestershire & Rutland
I can’t believe there are only 10 responses to this article so far. I think it demonstrates how reluctant NHS staff are to make their opinions public, which is not good at all. Debate has been stifled within the medical profession.
Update: 13th April 2021
The BMJ have now removed the letter from Dr. Polyakova, replacing it with this statement:
So, they allege that a letter which they published, which was presumably verified as genuine and which they do not criticise itself as being untrue, “is being used to spread misinformation” and is being “attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media”. In what way? How? By quoting in full, as I have done here and letting people make up their own minds about a letter which is pretty damn clear and leaves very little room for misinterpretation? This is just pathetic and transparent censorship of inconvenient information by BMJ, published on their own website, which they now find deeply embarrassing, so therefore have ‘unpublished’ it, using a risible excuse for so doing. It doesn’t really inspire much trust does it?