Solicitors have sent a letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of NHS England Sir Simon Stevens, on behalf of a whistleblowing NHS doctor laying out accusations of unlawful actions by NHS executives, the UK Government, Sage, the MHRA and other authorities.

The letter was also sent to Cressida Dick the Metropolitan Police chief, Charlie Massey the Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, Kathryn Stone OBE the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, and Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons.  

Philip Hyland Solicitors who specialise in employment law, constructed the letter on behalf of Dr Sam White who was suspended by NHS England on the 26^th June 2021 for publicly questioning the authorities Covid-19 protocols.

The reasons given for Dr Sam White’s suspension have allegedly been inconsistent, with the letter revealing he was told one thing verbally and another in writing.

Dr Sam White was told in writing that he was suspended on the basis of his social media output which blew the lid off everything the complying general public thought they knew about the past sixteen months.

Dr Sam White said in a social media video that gained over a million views that “the vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated,” and “the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE”.

The solicitors asked Sir Simon Stevens to treat the letter as “a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response” and is extremely condemning of the authorities which have imposed draconian restrictions and unnecessary medical treatments on the British people for the past sixteen months.

Public Hyland Solicitors described the inconsistencies of Dr Sam White’s suspension as follows –

“My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020. All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content. The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person. The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room.”

---

---

The accusations made within the letter to Sir Simon Stevens are damning and consist of the following –

• The MHRA has failed to ensure the vaccine advertising programme meets common law obligations as well as statutory obligations.
• The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the Covid vaccine failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.
•  The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study.
• Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine: 1. To do no harm. 2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated. The NHS and the Government have done neither and breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.
• At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.
• Those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry.
• Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.
• The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation.
• Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 5 in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna6 , one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein.
• Matt Hancock did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts over which he had responsibility.
• The public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route. Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.
• The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public on the number of infections. That information does not differentiate between individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid, and those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
• A letter from an MP states that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.
• The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
• The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
• There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.
• The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts. That information has not differentiated between those presenting in hospital with covid illness. those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently tested positive for coronavirus, or whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
• The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
• The information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are. This has either been intentional or grossly negligent.
• The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.
• The information presented to the public does not differentiate between those dying from Covid, those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death, or those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
• The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable.
• The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings.
• The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven. Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid. The risk is asymmetrical. The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
• The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity. The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction. It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability. None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
• Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy. Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed. Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed. Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
• The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated. That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way.
• The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
• The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
• The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy.
• The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
• The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
• . The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
• By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1%.
• The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination. It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.
• None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from. Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 201227 make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law.
• The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
• The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent.
• The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
• The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

The letter makes several other extremely serious accusations which you can read in full here.

Philip Hyland Solicitors also claim in the conclusion of the letter that they have a backlog of NHS whistle blowers to advise with exampled of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the alleged Covid pandemic, including exaggerations of Covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation.

Dr Sam White and his solicitors are now eagerly awaiting a response from Sir Simon Stevens, Chief Executive Officer of NHS England, the MHRA, Cressida Dick, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and all other recipients of the explosive letter. The question is, will they get one?