Letter from an NHS whistleblower to the NHS Director of Health and Chief Medical Officer of England, regarding COVID-19 vaccination and mandates.

You won't be surprised by the level of ignorance and dogma in the response.

A new friend of mine, frontline NHS staff, has been a useful resource of real, truthful information relating to the impact of COVID on society.

In addition to actually caring for COVID patients in spite of the pernicious official advice provided by the public health authorities on treatments, it is of course well-known that they have been fighting their own battle against mandates for the vaccine that the honest ones can see causing massive harm to their patients.

Here, with permission, I share their letters to Dr Nikita Kanani, Medical Director of Primary Care, NHS England and to the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, articulating their concerns about the vaccine and its mandating for them and their colleagues.

---

Dear Dr Kanani,

I don't really understand why these COVID-19 vaccines are still being mandated through the back door by the Department of Health.  The following phrase is in most of your documents:

"NHS England and NHS Improvement have always been clear that staff have a professional duty to get vaccinated and it remains our best line of defence against COVID-19 and as such, we encourage NHS employers to continue engaging with and supporting their staff to inform their decisions in order to drive vaccine confidence, protect themselves and everyone else."

The above paragraph is purely emotive and has no scientific or medical basis because we all now accept that these vaccines do not prevent anyone from either getting Covid or transmitting it to others.  For this reason, the confidence in the vaccine has already been lost.  How can you justify the phrase: "Protect themselves and everyone else"?  To say that it is a professional duty to have the vaccine is outrageous because the virus has mutated multiple times and is continually mutating, so this vaccine, now almost two years old is not effective.  The vaccine does not prevent the illness and therefore is not the best line of defence against Covid-19.

Most of our vaccinated staff have had covid following their booster vaccines this winter and our unvaccinated staff have been the ones covering and picking up phones and queries from patients.  The vaccinated staff members have had severe symptoms and been off work for more than two weeks while one of our unvaccinated employees who caught covid just before Christmas was ready to be back at work after 4 days, but we asked her to follow the rules and not come in to the Surgery for a further week.   There has been no difference in symptoms between our vaccinated and unvaccinated patient cohorts, in fact some of those without vaccines have had milder symptoms and no long covid.  

Every day we have at least one or two patients suffering from side-effects due to the vaccines and today one of our young patients ended up in A&E, we have now been told to refer her to a clinic for Long Covid.  She had her first vaccination in July, then caught covid in August and developed palpitations and clotting symptoms.  She was told to wait before having her second jab, which she had this January and again she has developed palpitations and other symptoms.  This is just one case, but throughout the year, young patients have been telling us that they have not felt well since vaccination.   My own niece,  who is training to be an anaesthetist has suffered badly this year with side-effects from the vaccine and more recently catching covid with severe symptoms.  For me, it makes me doubt just how safe and effective these vaccines really are.

I'm not criticising the government's amazing programme in getting everyone vaccinated and also the many people from the NHS and volunteers who made it happen - it has been absolutely fantastic, but the vaccine safety and efficacy should be better evaluated and questioned, not censored or suppressed.

Please would you ask Sir Chris Whitty to be honest and truthful with the public because we have had two years of hell under his leadership as Chief Medical Advisor, from restrictions and silly rules to control, coercions and mandates and it appears that our SAGE group of scientists have influenced the W.H.O too. The whole world has been turned upside down, including recommending vaccinating 5–11-year-old children and sowing the seeds of division for families with those not wanting the vaccines.  It is our younger generation to whom the most damage has been done to over the past two years.  We need to stop and reflect.

---

Dear Sir Chris Whitty,

Please could you explain why you believe the following paragraph taken from the attached document to be true:

"NHS England and NHS Improvement have always been clear that staff have a professional duty to get vaccinated and it remains our best line of defence against COVID-19 and as such, we encourage NHS employers to continue engaging with and supporting their staff to inform their decisions in order to drive vaccine confidence, protect themselves and everyone else."

What is the scientific and medical basis behind this?

Point 1: 

We know that the vaccines are no longer effective against either catching Covid or transmitting it.  The confidence in the vaccine has already been lost.  Why are you using emotive language such as "professional duty" to insist staff get vaccinated, even when they have made an educated and informed choice?

Point 2:

Having spoken to many people within the community, I know that they are not safe for everyone.  Many young patients and staff have had reactions and side-effects to the vaccines and then caught Covid anyway.  Why do you want to put staff through this type of pain with an experimental vaccine which does have some safety concerns and we absolutely do not yet understand the long-term effects.

Point 3:

Science and Medicine is about doing no harm.  Yet throughout this pandemic, through perhaps your instruction, so much collateral harm has been done to the many, including my staff.  The anxiety and fear that was promoted has caused many mental health issues, especially in the young.  To have or to not have the vaccine has also caused anxiety and separations between family and friends.

Point 4:

The collateral damage in every sense whether it be for well-being, economic or relationships between people has been huge and will not be easy to repair.  The harm that has been done via the handling of Covid is greater, I believe, than the harm from the virus itself.

Please would you at least reflect on where we are now and stop trying to exert your control over the population.  You do not know everything about medicine, science or people's health, so please stop acting as though you do and mandating a vaccine that has clearly not worked.  The way that groups of scientists have defended the efficacy of these vaccines is unbelievable and you have lost trust in the very people who had the utmost admiration for you, pre-pandemic. 

---

This was the response from the NHS correspondent:

I appreciate your concerns.

The Government is clear that the country's fantastic health and social care staff are our greatest asset. In these most difficult of times, and with ever-increasing pressures on the NHS and social care, they work incredibly hard, putting patients and service users first and keeping them safe whilst providing the care we all expect.

In November, the Government laid regulations that would introduce vaccination requirements in health and social care settings, with the aim of reducing COVID-19 transmission by minimising levels of infection amongst staff. Those receiving care can be some of the most vulnerable in society and face serious impacts if they are infected with COVID-19. This was the right and proportionate policy at the time, with the weight of clinical evidence on the then-dominant Delta variant outweighing workforce risks. At the time it was observed that, after two doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with the Delta variant reached 65 to 70 per cent for the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and 80 to 95 per cent for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
 
However, shortly after the regulations were laid in Parliament, the Omicron variant began to emerge and now represents over 96 per cent of infections, up to 99 per cent in some regions. Given that Delta has been replaced as the dominant variant, the Government has revisited the balance of risks and opportunities that guided the original decision last year. In doing so, it was identified that:
 

• we have better protection for the population against hospitalisation from COVID-19, owing to the success of the vaccination programme and high levels of prior COVID-19 infection;

• the Omicron variant is intrinsically less severe than the Delta variant, with the risk of presentation to emergency care or hospital admission approximately half that for Delta;

• further data collected by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) shows that a full primary course (two doses) of an approved vaccine does not provide the intended longer-term public health protection against the Omicron variant, as it does with the Delta variant.

Having re-evaluated the evidence, and although vaccines remain our best defence against COVID-19, the Government no longer believes it proportionate to legally require the vaccination as a condition of deployment. The Government subsequently held a consultation, which closed on 16 February, to seek views on the matter. The consultation outcome was published on 1 March and can be found by visiting www.gov.uk and searching for ‘revoking vaccination’.

While the Government’s intention is to revoke vaccination as a condition of deployment under statute, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Chief Medical Officer have both been clear that getting vaccinated remains a professional duty. The Secretary of State has written to professional regulators, asking them to urgently review current guidance to vaccinations, including against COVID-19, to emphasise registrants’ professional responsibilities in this area.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, in licensing the vaccines, has been clear that they are both safe and effective. Vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19, and they remain the way out of this pandemic. Vaccinated people are far less likely to develop symptoms if they get COVID-19 and even less likely to get serious COVID-19, be admitted to hospital or die from it. The data also shows that, following the booster, people who are unvaccinated are up to eight times more likely to be hospitalised than those who are fully vaccinated. Booster vaccinations are estimated to have prevented over 100,000 people from being admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between mid-December and the beginning of February.
 
In addition, there is evidence that those who are vaccinated are less likely to pass the virus on to others. Therefore, the vaccines also provide some protection against transmission. A number of studies have provided evidence of reduced risk of household transmission when comparing people who have been vaccinated to those who have not.
 
I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
 
C Winters
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health and Social Care

---

I know my readers are considerably better versed in the truth about the lack of safety and efficacy of the vaccine so no need for me to highlight the multitude of misinformation presented in the NHS response.

However, what I find particularly appalling is the total disregard for all of the factual information presented by the concerned NHS member which completely contradicts the response.

The correct response should have been an acknowledgement that frontline, real-world experience is at least as useful and relevant as the (bogus) results of the official trials and a commitment to follow through by investigating these claims.

Alas, this is the sorry state of affairs of our “world class” public health institution. Not only are they ignorant of the essential facts that any ordinary person can obtain in the blink of an eye from Twitter or Substack (or they could even try reading their own official weekly bulletins??¹), they completely ignore the evidence presented directly to them by their own frontline staff.

The words “not fit for purpose” don’t even come close. But the real shame of it is the sheer volume of people who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of this institution’s woeful lack of competence and integrity.

1. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-covid-infections-in-britain/comments?s=r