UK NHS employee colluded with Moderna to test COVID vaccines on underage children using cash bribes
Company targeted 12 to 18 year-olds. Paid paltry fine and faced no consequences.
Moderna colluded with unnamed NHS employee to invite children between 12-18 years of age to enroll in their NextCove trial and used a representative to send WhatsApp messages offering £1,500 to underage children to take the jab.
The offer was made by a pediatrician from an unnamed NHS trust. Which means the UK National Health Service (NHS), a government organization, colluded with a pharmaceutical company to breach ethical code of conduct and jeopardize the safety of underage children.
The inducement was made even though a research ethics committee had warned about the “large amount of money” Moderna was offering participants, and voiced concern it was “much higher than would be considered a reasonable reimbursement”.
Moderna, a pharmaceutical company with only one product, raked in a windfall revenue of $6.8 billion in 2023—was ordered to pay the paltry sum of £14,000 and had no other legal action taken against them.
The UK Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) ruled that the offer amounted to “inappropriate financial inducement” and found the company had brought “discredit upon the pharmaceutical industry”.
Under The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations it is prohibited for incentives or financial inducements to be given to children or their parents.
Esther McVey MP, of the now-defunct All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) on Covid-19 vaccine damage said: “A charge of £14,000 to a company that enjoyed a total revenue of $6.8 billion in 2023 is hardly likely to make them think twice before breaking the rules again.
“Not only are the charges too small but when they come, they come too late. There is a major backlog in handling these kinds of complaints, with a recent case against Moderna taking the PMCPA 18 months to consider.
“The system is clearly broken and failing to keep patients safe from misleading information and advertising about medicines. The public’s trust in healthcare authorities will only continue to be damaged unless meaningful action is taken.”
The real question is how and why Moderna’s NextCOVE trial was ever approved in the first place.
Philip Davies, the former MP for Shipley, emailed the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which is responsible for ethical reviews and approvals of clinical trials, asking for further information about the ethical rationale for including healthy children in this trial. Healthy children are very low risk for Covid-19 related complications, so he wanted to know why healthy children aged 12 years and up were being included in this study at all.
The HRA decided to treat Philip’s email as a Freedom of Information request and said it would respond within the statutory 20 working-day time frame. Except, it did not. It wrote shortly before that deadline had expired to say that because of “staffing issues” it would need a week’s extension to its deadline.
When its response eventually came,1,135 pages of information arrived. In all those pages, there was nothing that constituted a coherent and robust ethical justification for including healthy children in this trial.
One of the most important documents in any ethical consideration and judgment is the Clinical Study Protocol. This document sets out in detail exactly why and how the study is to be conducted. The HRA was specifically asked for the Protocol document. However, it decided that the Protocol was “commercially sensitive” and refused to share it.
An internal review of its response led to a complaint which went to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO’s verdict was quite extraordinary and suggests a rather disturbing trend that the development of “commercial sensitivities” is taking priority over the public’s right to know important information. The Commissioner’s view was that public interest is best served by the HRA maintaining good relationships with pharmaceutical companies. In other words, putting corporate interests before greater transparency and openness.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers enjoy iron-clad protection from liability based on concessions afforded to pharmaceutical companies in 1976 that resulted in the National childhood vaccine injury act of 1986, when Congress passed a law protecting vaccine manufacturers from severe personal injury and wrongful death. In 1976 a fake swine flu epidemic was used as the basis of vaccine mandates that resulted in vaccine injuries. You can read all about the sordid saga by clicking on the link below.
What is wrong with the world that, one week in, you don't already have thousands of likes on this article?