Letter to Kirklees Council regarding the misuse of public money to promote vaccines

0Shares
0
Written by: Miri
March 10, 2022
 | 2 Comments

Dear Kirklees Council,

I am writing to you regarding the news item in the Yorkshire Live online newspaper (1) revealing that Kirklees Council spent several thousand pounds incentivising ‘social media influencers’ to promote vaccinations to the populace of Kirklees.

I am shocked and appalled to read this news. Paying off inexperienced youngsters to promote a complex and risky experimental new medical therapy, that they lack any qualification to properly understand, to their ‘followers’, is completely unethical.

‘Social media influencers’ are not doctors, scientists, or other healthcare professionals, nor are they privy to the private medical histories of their followers and what medical interventions may or may not be suitable for them. Therefore, paying (one might say ‘bribing’) these youngsters to uncritically endorse a powerful medical treatment is reckless, irresponsible, and openly flouting all well-established laws surrounding medical ethics and informed consent (2, 3).

If an individual is considering whether to take a vaccination, or any other medical product, then, as a publicly funded body that is obliged to uphold the law and certain ethical standards, it is incumbent on Kirklees Council to direct such an individual to consult qualified healthcare professionals - not teenagers on Instagram.

Were Kirklees Council to pay teenagers to promote the well-known risks and adverse reactions associated with vaccines, then there would be an outcry – that these young people are “not scientists”, and “don’t have medical degrees”, so should not be commenting on vaccine dangers. The obvious corollary of this is that, if a person is not considered qualified enough to understand the risks of a treatment, then they certainly are not qualified enough to promote its benefits and endorse it to others. This position is enshrined in law, as per the Montgomery ruling (3), which states that if a patient is not informed on the risks of a treatment, as well as its benefits, they cannot legally consent to the treatment.

Were Kirklees Council to pay an actual doctor to promote vaccines on social media, this of course would be completely illegal and rightly so – because the ethical implications of being paid to promote a pharmaceutical product are obvious. All objectivity and impartiality are lost, and it all becomes about the money. Inexperienced young people, craving cash, recognition and attention, would promote most things if paid enough.

I have written to Kirklees Council on more than one previous occasion, to express my deep dissatisfaction with the way it has responded to the coronavirus “pandemic”. I have been, since the beginning of this scenario, vigorously opposed to all the restrictions imposed in the name of the pandemic, including and especially “lockdowns”. The imposition of “lockdown” on the populace was never based on any credible, reproducible science, a fact which is now being increasingly revealed, as various scientists, experts, and whistle-blowers around the world confirm the restrictions did little or nothing to reduce hospitalisations and deaths (4), and that the catastrophic harms associated with these restrictions far outweigh any positive effect they may have had (5).

I am extremely pleased and relieved that the UK Government has finally seen sense and removed all remaining Covid restrictions, however, I remain deeply concerned about the current, cumulative, and ongoing negative effects of the Covid “vaccination” - which is not actually a vaccination in any conventional sense, given that it does not prevent either contraction or transmission – which was brought to market dangerously quickly and without undergoing adequate safety testing.

Many eminent scientists warned against the dangers of accelerating vaccine development on such an unprecedented scale, cautioning that this was a profoundly risky thing to do with coronavirus vaccines particularly (6).

The reason a coronavirus vaccine has never made it to market before, despite several making it to the testing stages, is because, in the long-term, such interventions always proved, not just unsafe, but lethally unsafe. Trials for a SARS (a type of coronavirus) vaccine came to an abrupt end when these trials showed that, whilst these injections initially provoked a robust immune response, further down the line, test subjects developed something called “vaccine enhancement syndrome”, whereby, when they encountered wild coronaviruses (such as the common cold), their immune systems dramatically overreacted. Many of the test subjects in these trials died, and so the trials were swiftly abandoned.

Vaccines developed for “Covid”, however, were not in clinical trials long enough to eliminate the possibility of vaccine enhancement syndrome occurring later on, and so that remains a very real risk.  

Furthermore, a very large array of serious and debilitating side effects are associated with these vaccines, including heart attacks, cardiac arrests, strokes, brain haemorrhages, and death. Manufacturers of one of the vaccines most widely in use, Pfizer, has recently released internal data revealing such side effects (7), effects that the pharmaceutical giant had intended to conceal from the public for 75 years, but Pfizer was overruled by a judge who insisted the data was published now (8).

The veracity of this data is, tragically, reflected in all our families and local communities, as we all know at least one person (and often many more than that), to have “died suddenly” in recent months, from heart or clotting disorders, that they had no previous history of. This phenomenon is overwhelmingly occurring in the double and triple “jabbed” populations, and not in their unvaccinated counterparts.

Neither I, my immediate family, nor close friends, have received the vaccination, and we are all in perfectly good health, having had nothing more serious than a cold these past two years (this is including family members over 70 and those considered “clinically vulnerable”).

However, extended family and other acquaintances who have received the vaccine now appear besieged with ill health. One extended family member with no previous heart problems had a massive heart attack soon after receiving his second dose (fortunately, he survived). Another vaccinated family member collapsed in a supermarket from a brain haemorrhage, which, tragically, resulted in her death, whilst a fit and active family friend was found dead in bed from what was diagnosed as cardiac tamponade (a generally rare condition, but which is known to be a potential effect of the vaccine).

Perhaps one might be tempted to dismiss these reports as “anecdotal”, were it not for the Pfizer data report, which confirms the vaccine can result in these outcomes.

Bearing these facts in mind, I find it particularly egregious that Kirklees Council is effectively bribing inexperienced youngsters to propagandise their peers into receiving a risky new pharmaceutical product that could result in serious adverse side effects including death, and all for a condition the data has always confirmed young, healthy people are at effectively no risk from.

I am prepared to give Kirklees Council the benefit of the doubt insofar as you may not have known about the extensive catalogue of serious damage associated with these vaccines, since the establishment has gone to great lengths to conceal them from mainstream view.

However, you certainly should have been familiar enough with basic ethical standards which clearly would dictate that governmental bodies should not be paying teenagers to promote drugs.

I look forward to your prompt written response within 7 working days acknowledging my concerns and detailing what steps you will be taking to ensure public money is never misused in this deeply disturbing way again. I also await information regarding what campaign you will be undertaking to ensure the residents of Kirklees are fully informed on the risks of vaccination, as well as the benefits. If you do not intend to conduct such a campaign, then your previous efforts are clearly revealed as nothing but manipulative – and in this instance very dangerous - state propaganda.

This letter has also been sent to Barry Sheerman MP and to Yorkshire Live newspaper.

Yours sincerely,

Miri Finch

REFERENCES

1)      https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/kirklees-council-spent-over-15000-23316928

2)      http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

3)      https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/members/membership-news/og-magazine/december-2016/montgomery.pdf

4)      https://fee.org/articles/3-studies-that-show-lockdowns-are-ineffective-at-slowing-covid-19/

5)      https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2022-02-02/a-johns-hopkins-study-says-ill-founded-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths

6)      https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-vaccines-insight/as-pressure-for-coronavirus-vaccine-mounts-scientists-debate-risks-of-accelerated-testing-idUKKBN20Y1I1?edition-redirect=uk

7)      https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3UxsqFwFEMegfcwVxXCUdqJlKHnPzK3DXzVfFDrw0Ucp0nznV9QiwsB8o

8)      https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:

2 comments on “Letter to Kirklees Council regarding the misuse of public money to promote vaccines”

  1. Hi Miri,
    Great articles with insight!
    Out of curiosity did Kirklees council respond to this letter at all?
    Thanks and regards
    Pat King

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Archives

Categories

.
©2022 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram