by Jeremy R. Hammond Mar 2, 2022 (www.jeremyrhammond.com)
This written statement to the UN Human Rights Council reminds the organization and its member states of their obligation to respect the right to informed consent.
A non-governmental organization (NGO) has submitted a written statement that I authored to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) illustrating why government policies seeking to coerce people into getting a COVID-19 vaccine are not about public health, but about power, control, and profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
The statement has now been published as UN General Assembly document “A/HRC/49/NGO/66”, dated February 17, 2022, and titled “COVID-19: Vaccine Mandates Are Not About Public Health”.
The NGO is the Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. (PACE), whose mission is “to facilitate the discovery, research, development, demonstration and evaluation of clean energy systems.” The group has Special Consultative status with the Economic and Social council of the United Nations (ECOSOC).
I have no affiliation with PACE apart from someone from the group having initially reached out to me in the summer of 2020 to see if I might be interested in writing up a short document expressing public concerns about governmental policies related to vaccines, which document would be submitted as a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council.
At the time, you will recall, much of the world was under extreme “lockdown” measures imposed by governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As I had been observing, the explicitly stated endgame of the lockdowns was mass vaccination with new pharmaceutical products that would be rapidly developed and marketed.
I had also been warning that the logical corollary of this policy aim was that the population would be coerced into accepting these newly developed products, whether by threatening continued lockdown measures with a “passport” system enabling only vaccinated individuals to exercise freedom or by direct mandates arising from legislative or regulatory actions.
So, I decided to accept the invitation and use the opportunity to deliver a reminder to the UN and its members states that they are legally obligated to uphold the right to informed consent and to rebuke them for instead grossly violating that fundamental human right.
The result was UN General Assembly document “A/HRC/45/NGO/43”, dated September 14, 2020, and titled “Vaccine Mandates Violate the Right to Informed Consent”.
I was approached again more recently to author another written statement and so took the opportunity to follow up by focusing on COVID-19 vaccine mandates; reminding the UN and its members once again of their duty to uphold the right to informed consent; rebuking them for instead violating that right; and elucidating with the example of the US why it logically cannot be true that the primary goal of such mandates is the betterment of public health.
You can click the links above to read each document. (I’ve learned from experience that sometimes links to UN documents can be funky and will not always work to load the document for you. If clicking the links doesn’t work for you, try right clicking, selecting to copy the hyperlink, and then pasting it into a new browser tab. If that still doesn’t work, head to https://undocs.org/ and append the URL by pasting in the document name. So, for the more recent of the two documents, you would copy “A/HRC/49/NGO/66”, without the quotation marks, and paste it into the end of that URL. You can use the UNdocs.org website that way to search for any UN documents by their name.)
I’m also reproducing the full text of each statement, along with the references, here:
Vaccine Mandates Violate the Right to Informed Consent
On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared pandemic status for COVID-19, the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome [coronavirus] 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Governments responded by implementing unprecedented “lockdown” measures globally with no clear exit strategy apart from the stated goal of rapidly developing a vaccine.[1] Concurrently, advocates of this hypothetical solution have called for lawmakers to make COVID-19 vaccinations compulsory.[2]
However, compulsory vaccination violates the right to informed consent, one of the most fundamental ethics in medicine and a human right recognized under international law, including the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of 2005, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol of 2006 and under internationally recognized agreements such as the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects of 2002, and the World Medical Association Declaration Of Helsinki of 1964, revised in 2013.
The United Nations (UN) and WHO are legally obligated to uphold the right to informed consent yet have instead been complicit in violating it.
For example, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) praised the Maldives government for passing a law in November 2019 that effectively outlawed the exercise of the right to informed consent by threatening parents with prosecution for non-compliance with public vaccine policy.[3]
In January 2020, two articles in The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) revealed that WHO had been sponsoring a malaria vaccine trial that included 720,000 children in three African countries without having ensured that the prior informed consent of the parents had been obtained. Most egregiously, parents had not been informed that earlier trials had found the vaccine to be associated with an increased risk of childhood mortality, particularly among girls. [4]
WHO also promotes the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine in global vaccination campaigns, despite the best available scientific evidence showing it to be associated with an increased rate of childhood mortality. While the vaccine may protect against the target diseases, it appears to detrimentally affect the immune system in a way that makes children more vulnerable to other diseases. This “non-specific effect” has been found to be true for non-live vaccine generally.[5]
WHO is aware of the evidence, but has dismissed it on the grounds that it comes from observational studies, which are prone to selection bias. However, WHO accepts the findings of observational studies showing beneficial non-specific effects of measles vaccination.[6]
Additionally, the members of the WHO committee tasked with reviewing the evidence had conflicts of interest, including three having ties to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), one of the manufacturers of DTP vaccines and the manufacturer of the experimental malaria vaccine.[7]
WHO also receives funding from vaccine manufacturers, including GSK, Sanofi, and Merck.[8] The single largest source of funding for WHO presently is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which promotes vaccines while holding investments in vaccine manufacturers including GSK, Sanofi, and Merck.[9]
The public is repeatedly assured by public health officials and the media that “vaccines are safe and effective”, but in the absence of randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing long-term health outcomes, including mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, that statement is not justifiable.
Vaccines do not undergo such trials before licensing. Nor are whole vaccine schedules studied for safety. With respect to the routine childhood vaccine schedule recommended by the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute of Medicine in 2013 observed that “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”[10]
There are many legitimate concerns about vaccines in addition to their non-specific effects. Policymakers do not consider the opportunity costs of vaccination, such as the superiority of immunity acquired naturally compared to that conferred by vaccination.
For example, studies have found that having a flu shot annually could increase the risk of infection with novel influenza strains, as well as with non-influenza viruses, in part due to the lost opportunity to acquire the cross-protective, cell-mediated immunity conferred by infection.[11]
A complementary hypothesis is the phenomenon of “original antigenic sin”, whereby the first experience of the immune system with an antigen determines future responses. Priming the immune system with antigen components of the influenza vaccine could potentially cause a mismatched antibody response to strains that the vaccine is not designed to protect against, thereby increasing the risk of infection as compared to an immune response in which naive T and B cells are instructed to fight off the infecting virus.[12]
This phenomenon might help explain an increased risk of serious dengue infection among Filipino children who received the dengue vaccine and who had not already experienced a prior infection. This finding led the Philippines to the withdrawal of the vaccine, which the government had implemented into its childhood schedule upon the recommendation of WHO, despite earlier data having indicated that the vaccine might cause precisely that outcome.[13]
A related hypothesis is that of “antibody dependent enhancement” (ADE), whereby vaccine-induced antibodies, instead of protecting the individual from subsequent infection, enhance the infection and thereby increase the risk of severe disease.[14]
Attempts to develop a vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS) were impeded by this phenomenon, whereby vaccinated animals were found to be at increased risk of viral infection. This past experience has raised concerns about the potential for ADE with vaccines under development for SARS-CoV-2.[15]
As another example of opportunity cost, surviving measles is associated with a reduced rate of all-cause mortality in children, and this survival benefit appears to more than offset measles deaths in populations with a low mortality rate from acute measles infection.[16]
Additionally, measles infection has been observed to cause regression of cancer in children and has been associated with a decreased risk of numerous diseases later in life, including degenerative bone disease, certain tumours, Parkinson’s disease, allergic disease, chronic lymphoid leukaemia, both non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma, and cardiovascular disease.[17]
Other infections have also been associated with health benefits, such as a reduced risk of leukaemia among children who experience Haemophilus influenzae type b infection during early childhood.[18]
There is also the potential for mass vaccination to put evolutionary pressure on pathogens, as has been seen with the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, and the emergence of pertussis strains lacking pertactin, a key antigen component of the vaccine. According to CDC, such strains “may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”[19]
Population effects of vaccination must be considered in addition to their effects on individuals. Data suggest that the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine has not been cost-effective but has rather increased health care costs due to the inferiority of vaccine-conferred immunity. This is because mass vaccination appears to have shifted the risk burden away from children, in whom it is generally a benign illness, and onto adolescents and adults, who are at greater risk of complications. Due to the loss of immunologic boosting from repeated exposures, elderly people who had chicken pox as children are at greater risk of shingles. But rather than reconsider existing recommendations, policymakers respond to this problem by recommending a shingles vaccine for the elderly.[20]
In the US, many parents are concerned that manufacturers of vaccines recommended by CDC for routine use in childhood enjoy legal immunity from injury lawsuits because this represents a disincentive to pharmaceutical companies in terms of developing safer and more effective means of disease prevention. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) of the US government effectively shifts the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the industry and onto taxpaying consumers.[21]
Another major problem is that policymakers treat vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution to disease prevention, when the science is unequivocal in establishing that a risk-benefit analysis must be carried out for each vaccine and each individual. Not everyone is at the same risk from the target disease, and not everyone is at the same risk of harm from the vaccine.
For example, children with a mitochondrial disorder may be at increased risk of vaccine injury. In one case adjudicated under the VICP, the US government acknowledged that vaccinations can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism.[22]
In a 2018 interview, the director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office acknowledged the possibility that vaccines could cause autism in genetically susceptible children but stated that it was “hard to predict who those children might be.”[23]
Legislators do not have the specialized knowledge required to conduct the necessary risk-benefit analysis of the individual. Only the individual, or in the case of a child, the parents, possess that knowledge.
All vaccines carry risks. Compulsory vaccination constitutes a gross violation of the right to informed consent. Governments urgently need to orient health policies towards protecting rather than violating this human right.
References
[1] United Nations General Assembly, A/HCR/45/NGO/43, September 14, 2020, https://undocs.org/A/HRC/45/NGO/43.
[2] World Health Organization, “Coronavirus disease (COVID‑19): Serology”, WHO.int, updated June 9, 2020, archived November 12, 2020, at https://web.archive.org/web/20201112033233/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology.
WHO, “Coronavirus disease,” WHO.int, updated November 13, 2020, archived November 14, 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20201114155111/https:/www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology.
WHO, “Coronavirus disease,” WHO.int, updated December 31, 2020, archived July 1, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210701225223/https:/www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology.
[3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination,” CDC.gov, updated December 20, 2020, archived December 29, 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20201229024002/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html.
[4] Ania Wajnberg et al., “Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months,” Science, October 28, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7728.
Christian Gaebler et al., “Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2,” bioRxiv, November 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.367391.
Jennifer M. Dan et al., “Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to eight months after infection,” bioRxiv, December 18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323.
[5] Jackson S. Turner, “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans,” Nature, May 24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03647-4.
Ewen Callaway, “Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime,” Nature, May 26, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01442-9.
[6] Carolyn Rydyznski Moderbacher et al., “Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity,” Cell, September 16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.038.
La Jolla Institute for Immunology, “T cells take the lead in controlling SARS-CoV-2 and reducing COVID-19 disease severity,” LJI.org, September 16, 2020, https://www.lji.org/news-events/news/post/t-cells-take-the-lead-in-controlling-sars-cov-2-and-reducing-covid-19-disease-severity/.
[7] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination,” CDC.gov, updated January 15, 2021, archived January 15, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20201229024002/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html.
[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination,” CDC.gov, updated August 19, 2021, archived August 30, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20201229024002/https:/www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html.
[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination,” CDC.gov, updated January 11, 2022, accessed and archived January 12, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220112202229/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html.
[10] Dr. Paul E. Alexander, “146 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted,” Brownstone Institute, October 17, 2021, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/.
[11] Sivan Gazit et al., “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,” medRxiv, August 25, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415.
[12] Christian Gaebler et al., “Evolution of antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2,” Nature, January 18, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03207-w.
Antonio Bertoletti et al., “The T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2: kinetic and quantitative aspects and the case for their protective role,” Oxford Open Immunology, February 23, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfimm/iqab006.
Jianmin Zuo et al., “Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection,” Nature Immunology, March 5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-00902-8.
Jun Wu et al., “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces sustained humoral immune responses in convalescent patients following symptomatic COVID-19”, Nature Communications, March 22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22034-1.
Laith J. Abu-Raddad et al., “SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy,” EClinicalMedicine, April 27, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100861.
Kristen W. Cohen et al., “Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells,” Cell Reports Medicine, July 14, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100354.
Maria Skaalum Petersen et al., “SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands,” Open Forum Infectious Diseases, July 15, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab378.
Ariel Israel et al., “Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection,” medRxiv, August 22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111.
Tongcui Ma et al., “Protracted yet Coordinated Differentiation of Long-Lived SARS-CoV-2-Specific CD8+ T Cells during Convalescence,” Journal of Immunology, September 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2100465.
T. Eyran et al., “The longitudinal kinetics of antibodies in COVID-19 recovered patients over 14 months,” medRxiv, September 21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.16.21263693.
Anu Haveri et al., “Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans,” European Journal of Immunology, September 27, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.202149535.
Jie Zhang et al., “One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, October 5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab884.
[13] David H. Canaday et al., “Significant reduction in humoral immunity among healthcare workers and nursing home residents 6 months after COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination,” medRxiv, August 20, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.15.21262067.
Ariel Israel et al., “Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection,” medRxiv, August 22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111.
T. Eyran et al., “The longitudinal kinetics of antibodies in COVID-19 recovered patients over 14 months,” medRxiv, September 21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.16.21263693.
Mehul S. Suthar et al., “Durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,” bioRxiv, September 30, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.30.462488.
Peter Nordström et al., “Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study,” SSRN, October 25, 2021, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3949410.
Christian Holm Hansen et al., “Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study,” medRxiv, December 23, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966.
[14] Juliet R.C. Pulliam et al., “Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of the Omicron variant in South Africa”, medRxiv, December 2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.11.21266068.
[15] Heba Altarawneh et al., “Protection afforded by prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron variant,” medRxiv, January 6, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.05.22268782.
[16] Christian Holm Hansen et al., “Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study,” medRxiv, December 23, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966.
[17] Sarah A. Buchan et al., “Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection,” medRxiv, January 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565.
[18] UK Health Security Agency, “SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England,” GOV.UK, December 31, 2021, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045619/Technical-Briefing-31-Dec-2021-Omicron_severity_update.pdf.
[19] Irina Anghel, “Frequent Boosters Spur Warning on Immune Response,” Bloomberg, January 11, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says.
Leah Barkoukis, “Should We Be Boosting Our Way Out of Covid? The European Medicines Agency Is Issuing a Warning,” Townhall, January 12, 2022, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2022/01/12/repeated-booster-warning-n2601750.
[20] President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness,” The White House, January 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/National-Strategy-for-the-COVID-19-Response-and-Pandemic-Preparedness.pdf.
[21] National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “NIH Clinical Trial of Investigational Vaccine for COVID-19 Begins,” NIH.gov, March 16, 2020, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins.
Zain Rizvi, “The NIH Vaccine,” Public Citizen, June 25, 2020, https://www.citizen.org/article/the-nih-vaccine/.
L.A. Jackson et al., “An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report,” New England Journal of Medicine, November 12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Rebecca Robbins, “Moderna and U.S. at Odds Over Vaccine Patent Rights,” New York Times, November 9, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/us/moderna-vaccine-patent.html.
