MAY I add to the debate on vaccine safety? In the 1970s I was medical adviser to Duphar Laboratories, the main flu vaccine company at the time. I had to attend the post-mortems of anyone who had died within 48 hours of receiving a vaccine.

Although two million doses were given per year, I was only called to two autopsies. One was of a man who had died on the bus home from the surgery, where he also had had his ear syringed. The syringing had ruptured a carotid artery aneurysm, causing a massive stroke. The second was in a man who after his “jag” pushed a loaded wheelbarrow up a steep bank. This stopped his failing heart: the vaccine was irrelevant.

In a bizarre third case a coroner blamed a sudden death on our vaccine, given in a factory a few hours before. As a Duphar team had given the injections, we had to investigate. It turned out that the team had sent the man home without vaccinating him, as he had a headache. When we explained this to the coroner he ruled that the death must remain linked to influenza vaccine, as his decision could not be deleted. The three deaths remained on record as linked to vaccine.

In 1975 there were reports that vaccines could cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, a devastating neurological reaction that leaves patients temporarily paralysed and needing months of intensive care. I had to follow up all cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome in the UK for two months after the start of the flu vaccination season. There were 44, four of whom had been vaccinated – corresponding with the 10 per cent vaccination rate of the UK population. A Dutch study gave the same results. Guillain-Barre is still listed among vaccine adverse reactions.

There are warnings against vaccinating people with egg allergies. As viruses used in vaccines were grown in eggs, it was assumed that even the few molecules of egg protein in each dose might initiate severe anaphylactic reactions in egg-allergic people. Professor Margaret Turner-Warwick, a world-renowned authority on allergies at the time, agreed to assess the risk. She gave 24 volunteers with severe egg allergy our vaccine under strictly controlled conditions. None of them had the slightest reaction to it. Egg allergy remains a contraindication to the vaccine.

I’m content that authorities are over-cautious with their warnings about the safety of vaccines, but I hope that my experience will reassure people that they are safer than they are led to believe.

Dr Tom Smith, Girvan.

STOP PUTTING PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE

IAIN Macwhirter accepts that Covid-19 cannot be defeated anywhere until it is defeated everywhere yet suggests that we shouldn’t be shocked when our governments hoard vaccines ("Don’t be shocked when our governments hoard vaccines", The Herald, December 1). Precisely the opposite is true: such selfishness is short-sighted, self-defeating and it should shock and shame us all.

Critically, the solution isn’t to choose whether people in the world’s poorest countries should receive their first life-saving dose before or after people in Scotland and other rich countries receive their boosters: the solution is simply to make more vaccines so that everyone, everywhere has access to them, making us all safer.

For that to happen, governments like the UK's must end their support for the pharmaceutical monopolies which are holding vaccine recipes and technology hostage by refusing to share them with other qualified manufacturers. The US is already backing action to address this. Billions of pounds of public money funded the development of these vaccines and it’s morally repugnant that people are being left to die en masse because of corporate greed.

The consequences of the global vaccine shortage are crystal clear: less than three per cent of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated. Epidemiologists have long warned this will lead to new variants like Omicron threatening lives, vaccine efficacy and fragile economic recoveries in all countries, including in Scotland.

The Prime Minister must stop prioritising profits and patents over people’s lives.

Jamie Livingstone, Head of Oxfam Scotland, Glasgow.

DISMAY AT PARKING DECISION

IT is very disappointing that concerns of local residents and businesses have not been listened to or addressed during the implementation of controlled parking in Glasgow.

I suspect that Glasgow City Council (GCC) had already decided upon the outcome of its supposed "consultation" well in advance. The only reason I can see why it is pushing through an 8am-10pm seven-day parking zone in many residential parts of Glasgow is to make money, and it is not, as it is claiming, anything to do with providing a better environment for residents or businesses. It was clear that the majority view of locals, including business representatives, was that an 8am-6pm Monday to Friday parking zone would have been much more effective and workable. We were just not listened to.

GCC says it will address our concerns in a year. I am not convinced. If it cannot address them now, why should we believe that it will address them in a year?

We have children, grandchildren and elderly parents. They now have to pay to visit us in the evenings or weekends and worse still, can only stay for a maximum of three hours. This has become a very uncomfortable environment for families and we will leave as soon as we can manage to. Other families might not have an escape route. I am convinced that the orchestrators of this fiasco don't give two hoots, which really contradicts their vision of a "world-class city with a thriving and inclusive economy where everyone can flourish".

Jacqueline Jack, Glasgow.