The Elusive Evidence for Prevention of Transmission
On 12 March 2021 the Attorney General, David Parker, made a speech pertaining to the covid 19 response at the Lawyers in Government Conference.
“Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994”
Partially redacted draft notes relating to the speech were released as part of an OIA response (OIA-2526070). One paragraph in these notes referred to the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine and stated:
“18. Analysis of fresh data from three trials found that the first shot conferred on average 76% protection against symptomatic infections from three weeks until 90 days, and reduced transmission of the disease by 67%.”
As it has been nigh on impossible to obtain any scientific references regarding the Pfizer vaccine preventing transmission of infection (which was the basis of the vaccine mandates), details of the three trials referred to were requested.
The Response from Crown Law is below:
“Details/references of the three trials
Given the Attorney-General’s speech was delivered in 2021, we are unable to confirm with certainty the source of this information. However, given the content and context (including timing), we believe it was sourced from a pre-print academic article authored by Merryn Voysey et al, entitled Single dose administration, and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine. The pre-print version of the article is publicly available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3777268.”
This is the top legal person in the country at the time – David Parker – pre-empting mandating a novel medical procedure on the whole population and the evidence can’t be found 4 years later! Surely lawyers have to keep records and evidence for their proclamations?
The response we have been fobbed off with is a JOKE!
… indicating the potential for a reduction of transmission …
… potential for a substantial reduction in transmission.
… important question is whether vaccines can provide impact against transmission, and therefore combined with physical distancing measures contribute to reductions in human to human transmission of the virus.
While transmission studies per se were not included in the analysis,…
… thus a surrogate for potential onward transmission.
… may have a substantial impact on transmission…
This is the same Attorney-General (there’s that supremely authoritarian military term again) who said also that the covid jabs weren’t experimental as long as no recipients were followed-up; that Crown Law’s advice to the (tax-payer funded and representative) government should be kept from the people; and who presented the hurried Covid-19 Response Act to Parliament, freeing officials from obligations under the Health Act (Jodie Bruning describes well the astonishing ministerial machinations here); and told MPs that our human rights could be justifiably limited, without demonstrating why.
The Missing Evidence Behind ‘Trust the Science’
It is very hard to ‘trust the science’ when it can’t be produced. It is also very difficult to trust the lawyers when they can’t provide basic evidence that should have been retained.
