Translation: 'We checked with our lawyers and we confirmed that it is technically legal for us to dispose of or decline to provide the information which medical ethics would dictate that we keep.'
Fenton, I must urgently request you follow this FOIA up and ask them what legal basis was withdrawn that prevents them from holding such information.
Trusts cannot simply invent vague excuses about legality. They're obliged to refer to which specific FOIA exclusion criteria they are invoking to prevent you from seeing the data. That said...
*Before* you highlight this though, see if you can prise out of their hands what legal basis they have supposedly lost that prevents them from recording the information, as this will be a gold mine to know. Who told them to stop recording that information and what legal grounds were removed?
That by itself should not be immune to FOIA unless they're doing something illegal. Keep digging!
So... really they’re saying they a reason NOT to record that information on vaccination status? My mind boggles that so many organisations are seemingly hiding and covering up information like this, here in Australia too. I can’t comprehend it because it’s too big to be a conspiracy. Is it just trying to hide their incompetency and possible liability during the pandemic?
Thanks Dr Fenton. This is exactly what people need to be hearing. Concise, detailed and easy to understand. Now to find somebody to evaluate and report on US data in this manner. Although I don't think anyone can do this quite as well as you do!
Does anyone know why or what the change in 'legal requirement' was? Assuming that the numbers were collected in the first instance due to a legal requirement.
Am I near Billingsgate? There's a waft in the air...
If the vaccination status of a patient was recorded as part of the clinical record, by law these records have to be retained for a set period, and it is certainly longer than the period concerned. That sounds like a breach of their legal obligations on the face of it. Just another apparent example of not wanting to share any data that actually goes against the narrative of "safe and effective".
It's all such a nonsense is't it? A world gone mad. They want you to move on to other things but the nonsense they are spouting and the clearly deliberate obfuscations make that very difficult. What is the solution to this refusal to be honest about the vaccines and the problems we can all see but they refuse to acknowledge?
So if hospitals have no requirement to record or keep vax status, who does? Nobody, I guess. So we will never be able to get to the bottom of what happened.
I wonder what legal reason changed. They must have had one when they were collecting and storing the data, or did they just do that out of interest and the good of their own hearts. Had the data been favourable, legal reasons or no, it would have been kept and lauded over us.
No legal basis is just empty of meaning in this context. There is a medical/epidemiological basis (reason) to keep this information, which is what is important. So, where is the information held if the trust no longer hold it - or - has the information been destroyed? That should be clarified.
i'm surprised the message did not self destruct after 10 seconds....
Translation: 'We checked with our lawyers and we confirmed that it is technically legal for us to dispose of or decline to provide the information which medical ethics would dictate that we keep.'
This is a blatant coverup which everyone will see.
Fenton, I must urgently request you follow this FOIA up and ask them what legal basis was withdrawn that prevents them from holding such information.
Trusts cannot simply invent vague excuses about legality. They're obliged to refer to which specific FOIA exclusion criteria they are invoking to prevent you from seeing the data. That said...
*Before* you highlight this though, see if you can prise out of their hands what legal basis they have supposedly lost that prevents them from recording the information, as this will be a gold mine to know. Who told them to stop recording that information and what legal grounds were removed?
That by itself should not be immune to FOIA unless they're doing something illegal. Keep digging!
So... really they’re saying they a reason NOT to record that information on vaccination status? My mind boggles that so many organisations are seemingly hiding and covering up information like this, here in Australia too. I can’t comprehend it because it’s too big to be a conspiracy. Is it just trying to hide their incompetency and possible liability during the pandemic?
Thanks Dr Fenton. This is exactly what people need to be hearing. Concise, detailed and easy to understand. Now to find somebody to evaluate and report on US data in this manner. Although I don't think anyone can do this quite as well as you do!
Does anyone know why or what the change in 'legal requirement' was? Assuming that the numbers were collected in the first instance due to a legal requirement.
Am I near Billingsgate? There's a waft in the air...
Thank you, Dr. Fenton, for standing for truth.
Certainly matches the title of the Substack. 😉
If empirical science relies on data, as I thought it did, how can we now ‘trust the science’?
If the vaccination status of a patient was recorded as part of the clinical record, by law these records have to be retained for a set period, and it is certainly longer than the period concerned. That sounds like a breach of their legal obligations on the face of it. Just another apparent example of not wanting to share any data that actually goes against the narrative of "safe and effective".
It's all such a nonsense is't it? A world gone mad. They want you to move on to other things but the nonsense they are spouting and the clearly deliberate obfuscations make that very difficult. What is the solution to this refusal to be honest about the vaccines and the problems we can all see but they refuse to acknowledge?
Thank you for once again shining a light on how corrupt the Gov is regarding DATA...FUNNY we had every CASE NOTED 🤬🤯
Why keep records on a experimental, synthetic mRNA therapeutic that has no safety testing because everyone knows it is Safe and Effective anyway?
So if hospitals have no requirement to record or keep vax status, who does? Nobody, I guess. So we will never be able to get to the bottom of what happened.
Wow.
They are running scared.
I wonder what legal reason changed. They must have had one when they were collecting and storing the data, or did they just do that out of interest and the good of their own hearts. Had the data been favourable, legal reasons or no, it would have been kept and lauded over us.
No legal basis is just empty of meaning in this context. There is a medical/epidemiological basis (reason) to keep this information, which is what is important. So, where is the information held if the trust no longer hold it - or - has the information been destroyed? That should be clarified.