Write to your representative
It's time to demand answers
Public figures have no legal requirement to be held to account, they can say whatever they like and they never have to look at any of the troubling evidence that has now amassed over the pandemic response.
Your local MP, representative, MEP or politician does however have a responsibility to listen to you. It’s time to invoke our right as citizens of our respective nations to demand answers from our democratic system.
In the UK, you can use the service They Work For You. Punch in your postcode and compile a letter. In the USA, you can use Find Your Representative. In Canada, you can use elections.ca. In Australia, you can use aph.gov.au. I think most of my readers come from these three nations, but if you want to write to your local MP in your nation, please collaborate in the comments to help others with compiling the letter.
Please, use the template below and then change it, personalise it, and send it to your local representative. I can’t stress this enough: be courteous and polite. Remember, most people are absolutely unaware of this issue, we are bringing it to their attention and requesting that relevant authorities investigate the issues raised.
Public opinion is not enough, we need to demand answers over the safety signals we’re now all aware of. When you’re done with your letter, tweet a receipt that you have done so, and encourage others to do the same. Use this article as the base to do that if that’s helpful.
There is an ongoing campaign for bivalent boosters, but the data supporting the use of this new vaccine is troublingly small.
The MHRA have approved the new bivalent vaccine, but have done so using data from just 305 patients all over the age of 55. For patients below that age, no data currently exist to demonstrate safety or efficacy of the bivalent shot. Please see the official government data on this at the link below.
This is lack of data is concerning because good quality peer-reviewed studies have now emerged that cast serious doubt on the safety of the mRNA vaccines. A study co-authored by Peter Doshi, an associate editor at The British Medical Journal, and published in the peer-reviewed journal “Vaccine” on September 24th, showed that mRNA vaccines are creating a net loss of hospitalisations. They appear to be hurting more people than they are helping. The relevant quote is below.
In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants).
In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).
Just yesterday, Dr Aseem Malhotra, an NHS Consultant Cardiologist, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and President of the Scientific Advisory Committee, called for a “complete suspension” of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout until such time that these serious side effects could be investigated. His peer-reviewed paper, published on the 27th of September, showed that a 14,000 uptick in cardiac arrest ambulance calls in 2021 is credibly linked to the vaccination program.
Given the concerns raised in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific literature, can you request a thorough investigation from the MHRA into these issues? Have the MHRA been rigorous enough in their demand for high-quality safety and efficacy data given the safety signals we’ve now seen published in the medical literature?
Given that the MHRA is committed to “responding promptly and appropriately to concerns about the safety of medical devices”, please demand an urgent response to the data which underlies this call to suspend the vaccines until such time that these concerning side effects are properly investigated.
For people in the USA, you could add something like this
According to FDA data, the new vaccine was tested on just 8 mice, prompting Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA's Vaccine Advisory Committee, to say the benefits of a third shot may not outweigh the harm.
Please collaborate in the comment section on how this letter format can be personalised, altered, and tailored, so that we can get an official response to the concerns currently laid out in the scientific literature.
The Digger is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.