Do they not read what they send out to parents!?!?

[FlemCandango]

This anti Vax bollox was sent round to all parents of my child's school today. See photo.

I am struggling to understand why and how this happened! They have sent round a new email to say ignore the previous. But really poor show from the school 🤦

@EmRata95

So apart from the things numbertheory wrote, the rest can't be proved otherwise?

While happily someone has given you a couple of examples of the errors on that particular document, your request is the same (absence of) logic as someone sending a leaflet out saying 'God exists! He loves you! He is great!' me saying I don't believe in god, then you saying 'prove its not true.' The burden on proof is on those stating a belief as fact ie those who wrote or believe the data in that document. Lol indeed.

2, 3, 5, 7, 8, are facts

1. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

1. www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu/consultation-document-changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines#civil-liability-and-immunity

1. www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

1 is essentially true but the spike protein is altered, it's meant to be a locked protein, so the spike protein your body creates shouldn't bind to cells the same way and cause issues. This isn't known for sure though. It's true this doesn't work like any other current vaccine.
medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

6 is partly true but misleading - no evidence of infertility but true the clinical trial period is still not fully concluded and full marketing authorisation therefore has not been granted. Conditional marketing authorisation was only granted August 2021 for Pfizer. Previously only emergency use.
www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/impact-of-granting-a-conditional-marketing-authorisation-for-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-comirnaty/

4 is essentially true, it's the real amount of deaths potentially linked to the vaccines but that rate is likely inaccurate as some deaths will have been unrelated despite the MHRA recording them as linked. 9 is not possible to say given we don't know if the risk in 4 is correct, we can't compare the rates of risk from covid vs risk from vaccine. So that comparison is where this point is potentially inaccurate.

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. Some risk comparisons discussed here wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/5/20-3524_article

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/#!po=27.3333

Would you tick boxes 2, 3, 5, 7, 8; box 1 with disclaimer about alterations, and box 4 with potentially misleading comparison of rates removed, prior to having your jab, if they were given to you just before your vaccination? If you would then there's not that much problematic with this list. If you wouldn't... well, think about it.

@NumberTheory there have been that many deaths on the vaccine analysis data produced by MHRA. Of which 531 linked to Pfizer and 1080 linked to AstraZeneca, though that's not a certain causality as per my point above. You are incorrect that there have been "nowhere near that many". I have linked the data above, click "vaccine analysis print" so see the full breakdown of the large numbers of adverse effects and fatalities, by vaccine, as published by the MHRA on a weekly basis.

When I said I’d be furious to receive this from school, that was before I realised that it came from what appeared to be an official NHS email. That is absolutely shocking, but makes it a bit more understandable that the school forwarded it! I’m still not too impressed with their reading skills, but I assume schools have got used to forwarding NHS communications so perhaps don’t read them too carefully.

@FlemCandango

Lol why are people trying to defend this? It is pretending to be from the NHS it has been designed to fool busy school administrators. I don't care if some of the words are spelt correctly! It should not exist and should not have been sent out! GAH!

They are insecure about their own intelligence so are trying to assert some kind of superiority about not being sheep and so on.

If they weren’t so dangerous, I would pity them.

I offer the above for context. Schools shouldn't be sending fraudulent stuff out, obviously. Equally there is some argument that all risks and benefits should be fully shared, not just benefits. That's informed consent. Only sharing benefits to ensure people make the 'right' decision is no more ethical than this, which only shares risks.

I also personally believe context allows proper risk vs benefit analysis for individuals and also feel this shouldn't be suppressed to again promote the 'right' decision being made. Reminding people the risk of serious illness or death is miniscule for certain groups isn't a conspiracy. It would allow doses to be directed to other, poorer countries, to those more at risk. I'd rather a 60 year old in a developing country got a dose over a 13 year old here.

@EmRata95

Here is a good place to start

fullfact.org/health/coronavirus/

specifically about the vaccines

fullfact.org/health/coronavirus/#vaccines

@Jenala

2, 3, 5, 7, 8, are facts

1. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

1. www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu/consultation-document-changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines#civil-liability-and-immunity

1. www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

1 is essentially true but the spike protein is altered, it's meant to be a locked protein, so the spike protein your body creates shouldn't bind to cells the same way and cause issues. This isn't known for sure though. It's true this doesn't work like any other current vaccine.
medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

6 is partly true but misleading - no evidence of infertility but true the clinical trial period is still not fully concluded and full marketing authorisation therefore has not been granted. Conditional marketing authorisation was only granted August 2021 for Pfizer. Previously only emergency use.
www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/impact-of-granting-a-conditional-marketing-authorisation-for-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-comirnaty/

4 is essentially true, it's the real amount of deaths potentially linked to the vaccines but that rate is likely inaccurate as some deaths will have been unrelated despite the MHRA recording them as linked. 9 is not possible to say given we don't know if the risk in 4 is correct, we can't compare the rates of risk from covid vs risk from vaccine. So that comparison is where this point is potentially inaccurate.

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. Some risk comparisons discussed here wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/5/20-3524_article

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/#!po=27.3333

Would you tick boxes 2, 3, 5, 7, 8; box 1 with disclaimer about alterations, and box 4 with potentially misleading comparison of rates removed, prior to having your jab, if they were given to you just before your vaccination? If you would then there's not that much problematic with this list. If you wouldn't... well, think about it.

@NumberTheory there have been that many deaths on the vaccine analysis data produced by MHRA. Of which 531 linked to Pfizer and 1080 linked to AstraZeneca, though that's not a certain causality as per my point above. You are incorrect that there have been "nowhere near that many". I have linked the data above, click "vaccine analysis print" so see the full breakdown of the large numbers of adverse effects and fatalities, by vaccine, as published by the MHRA on a weekly basis.

I took a look at 5 as I mentioned it. Quick looks indicates this about miscarriage:

There is no pattern from the reports to suggest that any of the COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK, or any reactions to these vaccines, increase the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth

The word strokes doesn't appear at all afaict.

@Jenala

2, 3, 5, 7, 8, are facts

1. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

1. www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4759

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu/consultation-document-changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines#civil-liability-and-immunity

1. www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19

1 is essentially true but the spike protein is altered, it's meant to be a locked protein, so the spike protein your body creates shouldn't bind to cells the same way and cause issues. This isn't known for sure though. It's true this doesn't work like any other current vaccine.
medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

6 is partly true but misleading - no evidence of infertility but true the clinical trial period is still not fully concluded and full marketing authorisation therefore has not been granted. Conditional marketing authorisation was only granted August 2021 for Pfizer. Previously only emergency use.
www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/impact-of-granting-a-conditional-marketing-authorisation-for-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-comirnaty/

4 is essentially true, it's the real amount of deaths potentially linked to the vaccines but that rate is likely inaccurate as some deaths will have been unrelated despite the MHRA recording them as linked. 9 is not possible to say given we don't know if the risk in 4 is correct, we can't compare the rates of risk from covid vs risk from vaccine. So that comparison is where this point is potentially inaccurate.

1. www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

1. Some risk comparisons discussed here wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/5/20-3524_article

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327471/#!po=27.3333

Would you tick boxes 2, 3, 5, 7, 8; box 1 with disclaimer about alterations, and box 4 with potentially misleading comparison of rates removed, prior to having your jab, if they were given to you just before your vaccination? If you would then there's not that much problematic with this list. If you wouldn't... well, think about it.

@NumberTheory there have been that many deaths on the vaccine analysis data produced by MHRA. Of which 531 linked to Pfizer and 1080 linked to AstraZeneca, though that's not a certain causality as per my point above. You are incorrect that there have been "nowhere near that many". I have linked the data above, click "vaccine analysis print" so see the full breakdown of the large numbers of adverse effects and fatalities, by vaccine, as published by the MHRA on a weekly basis.

There have been that quite a few deaths as part of the vaccine analysis because any suspicion is reported as part of the Yellow Card scheme. But v. on investigation few have ended up being attributed to the vaccines themselves.

As it says at the top of the those Vaccine Analysis Prints you are highlighting
"A report of a suspected ADR to a Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have."

The section in this propaganda tarted up as a supposed consent form implies the deaths are caused by the vaccine (and that there may be more than "officially reported"). This is disingenuous and an improper use of the Yellow Card scheme statistics.

I think this is particularly nasty because not all the parents are well informed, and may worry. Such a sly way to persuade people not to get their children vaccinated.

I hope the news goes around and all the school become aware of this. Feel sorry for them for needing to deal with this when they must be under so much pressure.

Jenala - very interesting but I do not see that disingenuous "checklist" as useful context. It is deliberately worded to convey a message not a balanced overview. The NHS / Gov.uk/ scientific journals/ research papers have information on the vaccine. This document is propaganda.

The most effective propaganda has an element of truth to give it the sheen of respectability, but it has a clear agenda that the facts are servicing. The facts that don't serve the purpose are left out or glossed over, leading questions are asked. It is pretty blatant.

Now obviously I can be branded a naive sheeple for thinking the government is not actively trying to harm my children with the vaccine. I certainly think that they have harmed my children's futures through successive poor decisions, Brexit... etc. But I have to blame the British public for that really. They in turn were mislead by deliberate propaganda that was also pretty blatant! So I know it when I see it 🙄

The remark about alternative treatments makes no sense - the only alternative to get immunity other than the vaccine is getting COVID, which isn't a treatment. So, even with some correct information in the second half, the framework of the information given can lead to false conclusion.

Adverse reaction are usually listed most common to least so putting the rare ones possibly linked can lead people to thinking its common. Also, at least blindness is last I read still under investigation as to whether the vaccine was actually part of it, it's literally listed in a medical journal as "an unusual case" as part of ongoing investigation and multiple sight-related organizations have been putting out that there is no confirmed evidence on this. And linking just to the Yellow Card site isn't actually evidence when more than a few of those adverse reactions don't come up at all.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's not just if the terms or numbers are true, it's how it's being framed to lead people to a certain conclusion and action.

Shite like is why I keep recommending Calling Bullshit.

News story on this is here www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-58713266

@Nottheduchess

Makes me laugh. “The makers of the Covid vaccine are exempt from liability” of course they are, all pharmaceutical companies are exempt or nobody would ever make pharmaceuticals!!

What?! No they're not. I work for Pharma company and they're always being sued. Go read an Annual Report. It's all there in the Legal section.

I have seen a lot of people die from covid through work & it doesn’t take the frail patient, they survive. It took a lot of patients that on paper were robust enough to survive. You literally wouldn’t believe it if I could take you back pre covid and introduce you to the people who I never saw again after March 2020.

The anti vaxxers are desperate to be right though. They want that moment of “see we were right all along & you didn’t believe us”.

Disgusting that people are sending this maliciously to schools.

Poor form schools aren't checking and questioning before sending out, though things are happening very fast and I can see how this happens.

Can I prove it's wrong.

No. Because I'm not a medic. Bit I leave it (within reason) to people who have spent years studying this stuff so you and I don't have to. I say within reason because, like most people, I can use my powers of judgement for what's reasonable, and what's not, and what is or could be politically motivated or not.

The remark about alternative treatments makes no sense

Oh it does if you're in the know. Antivaxxers love pushing horse dewormer over the vaccine. Big conspiracy to cover up how effective it is at treating covid has led to people being hospitalised because its....for horses.

The section in this propaganda tarted up as a supposed consent form implies the deaths are caused by the vaccine (and that there may be more than "officially reported"). This is disingenuous and an improper use of the Yellow Card scheme statistics.

Which is massively ironic, considering that those quote the 'number of deaths from the vaccine' are often those know to ask 'Did those 150k people die of Covid, or with Covid?'

They tried to trick schools, and they tricked them.

They retracted and apologised, what more can they do?

We got this from our school today too. No follow up email to say to ignore it or anything... I assumed it was genuine and I was aware of most of it already. All the reasons I'm glad my teen has refused the jab

@EmbarrassingAdmissions not all possible side effects are listed in the summary. The ones mentioned are in that actual 'vaccine analysis print' which is linked at the top of the summary we page. As I noted in my post, it isn't definite causality, although I also note the MHRA does review all adverse effect reports before adding them to the analysis, it's not entirely raw data of all reports. The checklist doesn't say side effects "may" include though, it says it as if it is a given. Which I agree is unethical as I said in my second post. Still, I'm concerned about potential risks, not just proven ones. All proven ones started as potential. Hence paying attention to the weekly reports etc. The summary is updated quite a lot too, as new info becomes known, new studies published etc.

@NoiseTheory I did say this in my post, it's not definite causality. However as per above the analysis print is not totally raw data and has been checked by MHRA before adding, so has some level of weight. Even if it's only half accurste it's a lot compared to other vaccines. Could you link me the info about the fact that of the 1600ish in the analysis only a miniscule amount are actually linked to the vaccine?

@FlemCandango by context I meant for example understanding the actual risk covid poses to say a slim, healthy 21 year old vs an overweight 62 year old smoker. Splitting the risk by age is less granular but also useful. That kind of information is good to make an informed decision. The risk to benefit analysis of the vaccines is different for different groups and different individuals.

I wish people would stop banging in about people who don’t want the covid vaccine as anti vaxers. Anti vax people don’t agree with all vaccines. Some people are not comfortable with the covid vaccine for a number of reasons, this dose not mean they are completely anti vax full stop!

Stop besmirching the good name of proper anti-vaxxers who have been hard at work peddling bullshit about vaccines for years by lumping them in with these Jonny-come-latelys who can only be arsed to peddle bullshit about one vaccine.

@SquishySquirmy

It is quite a "good" mock up, in that at first glance it looks official and like a genuine consent form. But as soon as you read the contents, it is stating "facts" that are designed to dissuade people from getting the vaccine. But its not as out-there-loopy as some anti vax stuff, so is perhaps more able to get past people's bullshit radar.

Absolutely and even if people do book appointments for the vaccine the second one of the clinicians reads it and refuses to sign the nonsense it acts as a second layer of dissuasion as people will wonder why they aren’t prepared to sign their “perfectly reasonable” form. It makes it seem as if the workers are being weasely and untrustworthy.

[quote Echobelly]My guess is perhaps someone in school office googled 'NHS Vaccine permission' and got this and assumed it was the real thing?

Like when Trump spoke in front of a satirical Presidential seal because someone just downloaded the first thing they saw.

www.businessinsider.com/fake-presidential-seal-made-former-republican-dislikes-trump-2019-7?r=US&IR=T[/quote]
@Echobelly
Actually it isn’t someone googling something randomly, it’s a very well organised concerted effort by people who want to pedal incorrect or misleading information about the Covid vaccine to disrupt the school vaccination programme.

Schools across England have received this letter. In many, the school’s headteacher name was correct, in our area it appeared to be from the local NHS trust using the trust address and phone number, it’s a hoax a fraud and a very good one at that.
Schools have received in the past few weeks - threatening letters, threatening phone calls and threads of violence at the school gates over this.
The fact that people would fraudulently attempt to do this by falsifying letters from the NHS is shocking.