Complaint About Tower Hamlets ‘Vaccine Fun Day’

Updated: Aug 20, 2021

A reader and former lawyer recently lodged a complaint about what she regarded as unethical inducement to attend a vaccine ‘fun day’ and receive free food in return for being jabbed. You can read the Council’s response and her reply below:

Posted By The White Rose On 18/08/2021


COMPLAINT to TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL dated 29 July 2021

Langdon Park 'Summer Festival' unethical inducement, disregarding legal requirements for 'Informed Consent'


I was astonished and appalled to see the Council's Facebook poster; advertising free music and free food, like a grotesque fun-filled garden party, to induce ill-informed residents to participate in what is still an experimental gene-therapy treatment, which you should be well aware is an unlicensed medication and is only being given under an 'Emergency Use Authorisation' - the safety trials will not be completed until 2023.

Already, the MRHA 'Yellow Card' alert system has recorded, from the Covid Vaccination roll-out over 1,400 deaths and one million serious adverse effects, including blindness, blood clots, paralysis, MS and still births, so, given those risks (and as yet completely unknown long-term risks) this is a VERY serious issue, requiring individual risk / benefit analysis, without any direct or indirect element of inducement or coercion.


Your action in treating this as some kind of Carnival, is certainly medically unethical and immoral. By reference to the Nuremberg Code, when the full effects emerge of this medical experiment that you are promoting so flippantly, the inducements which have led to death or injury may well be actionable, by reason of having deliberately obscured the need for fully informed consent in each individual case. Your promotion makes no mention of any possible risks, nor the need for the patient to seek prior medical advice.


 

COUNCIL’S RESPONSE dated 10 August 2021 from icx@towerhamlets.gov.uk


Dear Mrs H.

Your complaint 30350293 about Langdon Park 'Summer Festival' unethical inducement, disregarding legal requirements for 'Informed Consent'


Thank you for your recent complaint received on 29 July 2021.

I have carried out a full review of all aspects of your complaint, as noted above, and will reply to each point individually


The Council is supporting the NHS Vaccination programme as it strongly believes that it is the most effective way to protect residents from the serious health impacts of the Covid-19 virus. Covid-19 infection levels are currently highest in the younger age groups so it is important to encourage young people to be vaccinated.


The COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the UK have met strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness. At the community events organised by the Council vaccines are administered by NHS clinicians who are well-qualified to do this. The same consent process is followed as at a NHS vaccination centre. No bribery or coercion is involved.


We are sorry that you take a different view but we will continue to support the vaccination programme and would encourage any resident to take up the vaccine offer as soon as possible unless there are specific reasons for not doing so advised by a qualified medical practicioner.

We do take all complaints seriously. However, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome and wish to progress to Stage 2 of our complaints process for review by the Chief Executive please provide details of why my response has not resolved your complaint and what action you would require as a resolution.

If you have any queries, please contact me at keith.williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk or on 020 7364 1523

To escalate the case please use the link below;

Contact us about this case


Yours sincerely


K.W.

Public Health Programme Lead

 

COMPLIANANTS RESPONSE dated 18 August 2021


Dear Mr. W.

Thank you for your response.


I regret that I am dissatisfied with your justification, and you have certainly not resolved my complaint.


Your use of the word ‘approved’ is misleading, as the medical procedure to which you refer, erroneously described as a ‘vaccine’ (it is neither a vaccination nor an immunisation in the proper medical-legal sense of such terminology) is only being administered under an Emergency Use Authorisation. As such, it is not approved/licensed by the MHRA, as the products are still undergoing safety trials, scheduled to continue until 2023,and the longer-term risks are still completely unknown.


The treatment currently being administered by the NHS and so enthusiastically promoted by the Council is, therefore, experimental, and your actions must be judged in this context.


You should also be aware of the MHRA Yellow Card system data, already recording 1400 deaths and an alarming account of life-changing adverse events attributed to reaction to ‘vaccination’, including blindness, blood clots, paralysis, MS, and stillbirths. So, from the published information, this is definitely not ‘a walk in the park’ as your poster would suggest.


I can do no better than refer you and your colleagues to the enclosed document just issued by https://doctors4covidethics.org/ (doctors and scientists from 30 countries, seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety and human rights in response to COVID-19) [See file below.]


In particular, I draw your attention to their concluding remarks:

“Above, we quoted Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi’s warning that early reports on clotting-related incidents and fatalities were likely no more than the “tip of the iceberg.” That iceberg is now in plain sight. America’s Frontline Doctors announced that, as of July 2021, almost 55,000 vaccine-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. alone. Based on sworn affidavits in their possession, this independent not-for-profit organization has filed for injunctive relief to revoke the emergency use authorization for all of the vaccines [51].


Considering such a staggering number of victims, it may seem that all ethical standards have been suspended, and that a human life no longer matters. Eventually, however, sanity and reason will reassert themselves, and a day of reckoning will come.”

You write: ‘No bribery or coercion is involved’


I disagree. The advertisement clearly offers the benefit of ‘free food’ to those who volunteer for the experimental injection, and, conversely, refuses that benefit to those who remain ‘vaccine hesitant’. In my opinion (as a retired lawyer) the clear intention of this advertisement is to sway or influence a decision or process, and, in this sense, the inducement amounts to a bribe. You were targeting young, impressionable folk, whose judgment may be manipulated by the impression that getting ‘jabbed’ is a no-risk fun-filled event – food, drink, music, dancing, as per the illustrations on the poster.


This portrayal of an experimental medical treatment, with the already known plus as yet unknown, risks, as ‘fun’ is, in my submission, highly unethical.


You imply that you are following the NHS. If the Council was doing so passively, by providing use of premises etc., no problem, the NHS bears responsibility, but here the Council has gone a step further, by themselves promoting the ‘event’ and offering inducements to steer young minds into the desired direction: (from the advertisement)

  • Today join us at our summer vaccine festival

  • 1st & 2nd Pfizer jabs – jabs under a marquee – don’t worry about the weather

  • free food voucher when getting jab for on site trucks incl. Taiwanese Bao boxes & vegan options

  • No appointment needed, everyone welcome

By doing this, the Council, in my submission, now bears personal responsibility, by reference to Article 1 of the Nuremberg Code, in relation to experimental medical interventions: ‘The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility’


I would argue that Tower Hamlets Council have themselves engaged in the experiment and thus cannot, in law, shift their personal responsibility onto the NHS (as ‘just following orders’) so the Council may be liable for any subsequent injuries, as those who were induced to participate were not properly cautioned before attending, thus negating informed consent.


Yours sincerely

Mrs G.H.

Read the original complaint and the advertising poster here: COMPLAINT-dated-29-July-2021-ref-30350293

From the Doctors for Ethics: Vaccine-Risk-Benefit_updated-August-2021

3 views0 comments