The Covid vaccine roll-out for healthy 12-15 year-olds is due to begin this week, but scientists remain concerned about the likely side effects. Some teachers tell me their schools still aren’t fully aware of the role they are supposed to play – “I can see it becoming a minefield”, said one teacher at a school in Yorkshire – and there seems to be some confusion among parents about the power they hold. Can they withhold their consent for the vaccination of their children or not?
Parents will be sent consent forms but only, it seems, as a formality since children who are deemed ‘competent’ (the assessment of which contains no set of defined questions) will be able to overrule the decisions of their parents anyway. This is of a piece with the Government’s decision to push ahead with its roll-out despite being told by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that “there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms” of Covid vaccination in healthy teenagers and that – given the small risk Covid poses to healthy 12-15 year-olds – the “margin of benefit… is considered too small”.
The JCVI is “generous” in its assessment, according to an executive at a pharmaceutical company writing for the Daily Sceptic. (He, by the way, believes vaccines are among the “three greatest medical innovations”, so could hardly be labelled “anti-vax”!) Responding to the data, he says there is a “serious enough” risk of children developing myocarditis after vaccination (inflammation of the heart muscle, the long-term consequences of which aren’t fully understood) whereas the benefits of vaccination are “not well quantified” by the JCVI. The body also fails to properly consider the risk of other conditions following vaccination.
Professor Adam Finn sums up the situation by saying the vaccination of children would not – in normal times – have been approved because of the possible risks. He believes that parents are justified in waiting to allow their children to get ‘jabbed’ until these risks are better understood. But therein lies the problem. What – if anything – can parents do to delay the vaccination of their children?
I’ve been trying to find the answer to this question over the past week – and the prospects for concerned parents are fairly bleak.
It’s probably best to start by ruling out protesting, given that schools have been told to call the police if “anti-vaxxers” plan demonstrations outside their gates. (I’m not sure that seeing their parents being dragged away by the police will be great for children’s mental health, which the vaccine roll-out is supposed to protect, but that’s a matter for another article.) One also has to question whether protesting would be worth it even if there wasn’t the risk of arrest.
The main tool in the parent’s armoury seems to be the written – or, perhaps, the spoken – word. You can’t be arrested for telling your local headteacher (either in a letter or at a meeting) that you disagree with your child being vaccinated without your consent (though you might be removed from their Christmas card list). The Yorkshire teacher mentioned above tells me that he gets the impression his school will do all it can to wash its hands of responsibility on this matter, preferring to say that the important decisions (i.e., “who should be vaccinated at school”) will be made by health professionals who use the school site (School Age Immunisation Service (SAIS) officials), not by the school itself. The school would, in this case, be wrong. Lawyers For Liberty (LFL), a group of non-partisan lawyers, made this point quite clear in its recent letter to the heads of regulatory bodies concerned with the protection of children and safety in schools:
If schools are intended to be the ultimate setting for the child vaccination programme, then school leaders will be deemed to have approved the Vaccination against the JCVI Advice. This has a variety of potential legal ramifications for school staff. Certainly many are concerned that there may be a serious safeguarding concern that would not align with the legal duties of schools, as outlined in the Department for Education document “Keeping Children Safe in Education”.
In another letter that LFL has drafted for parents to send to schools (see more details here), heads are given notice of their (and their school’s) potential legal liability on the matter of Covid vaccination.
If a parent communicates to you that their child will not to be included in the vaccination programme or does not provide consent, then that decision must be respected, without any further consequences for the child, including direct or indirect discrimination or coercion. Failure to do so may result in possible legal claims against you personally and for your School.
(It is worth noting here that Government guidelines say if a child gets ill following vaccination and the SAIS team has left the school, the situation should be managed “according to existing policies for pupil sickness in school”. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the school.)
Given the likelihood that schools would sooner “wash their hands” of responsibility on this tricky and confusing matter than face an array of expensive legal challenges (schools could be “vicariously liable for any harm which may come to any child receiving the vaccination whilst in your care leading to financial sanctions between £180,000 to £20 million”, according to LFL), simply presenting (personally or through the LFL letter) the head of your child’s school with the above information could be enough to prevent your child from being vaccinated without your consent. Imagine raising a question about the school’s insurance policy coverage for vaccination on school sites in the case of side effects. Staff are likely to respect your wishes, but it goes without saying that responses will differ from one school to the next.
Perhaps concerned that their words won’t be enough to block the vaccination of their children, some parents have decided to go one step further and keep their children away from school to stop them from being peer-pressured to accept the vaccination, according to the Telegraph. If you do decide to do that, it’s worth bearing in mind that the SAIS providers will likely only set up in your local school for one to two days, depending on the number of students, and that parents will be notified of the specific date(s) beforehand.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“He, by the way, believes vaccines are among the “three greatest medical innovations”, so could hardly be labelled “anti-vax”!”
Watch them!
Since when was truth even a consideration in the use of political smear terms such as “antivax”, “racist”, “homophobe”, or “antisemite”? Or absurdity for that matter. We’ve just seen US leftists smear Larry Elder as a “white supremacist” in order to protect the Democrat machine’s grip on their California fiefdom.
Cool. While I’ve long suspected that these people attach their abusive labels to others more or less at random[*], the notion of black white supremacist absolutely has something going for it.
[*] I’m still fondly remembering an online discussion of some years ago where I was both labelled socialist/ communist and nazi for not agreeing with anyone’s opinion.
“the notion of black white supremacist absolutely has something going for it.“
Actually, I’ve a feeling I’ve seen a few prominent black conservatives smeared as black white supremacists in recent years…
“While I’ve long suspected that these people attach their abusive labels to others more or less at random“
Well, I think most conservatives have had the experience of being accused of being “fascist” by some retarded lefty merely for questioning their dogmas, but the use of these more specific smear terms is a little more systematic, I think. But probably not much so.
It’s just idiocy of the red is the new green kind: The idea that white supremacists can be black implies that white supremacy is a meaningless concept: It’s just an equivalent of guy doesn’t agree with some of our politics, let’s fire some racist slurs at him!
It’s simple not possible to be a black member of a group exclusively concerned with eternal suppression of black people because they’re black people. If this group has black members, then, it’s not seeking to suppress all black people because they’re black people.
Surprise for you, nazis were “national socialists”.
Fascism is a collectivist, left wing ideology. It shares nothing at all with mainstream right wing thought, but a great deal with socialism generally.
Fascism is what Mussolini used to refer to his political ideas (from Latin fasces refering to a bundle of sticks for administering beatings Roman lictors were carrying). I’m only very superficially familiar with it, but one central idea was that of a corporatist organization of society and state. That’s an originally medieval idea, predates notions of political left and right by centuries, and has absolutely nothing to do with communist/ socialist collectivism.
You seem to be unaware of the use these labels are commonly put to: It’s basically two groups of people (in the USA) one considered to be left and the other considered to be right: The right ones call everyone they disagree with communist or socialist, the left ones use nazi instead.
The big joke is that the US is a one party state – the War Party. The public are led to believe there is a choice between Left and Right. However, with one recent exception, both Left and Right candidates are selected by the War Party. The Left and Right are allocated differences in viewpoint that are irrlevant to the War Party. That way, the facade of democracy is preserved, and no matter who ‘wins’ the election, the War Party always wins.
True. Nowadays, there is one party, that of what Catherine Austin Fitts calls “Mr Global”.
Look at the US Senate. 100 elected officials representing their state, two per state i assume.
Of these, only two have been repeatedly & publicly objecting to what’s happening to the republic.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WIS) has been at the agencies about vaccine safety & efficacy, because nobody else is. Just about no one seems to even be trying to hold drug companies, agencies, the NIH / NIAID, media, tech or anyone to account for turning blind eyes to the awful toll of injuries & deaths.
I genuinely don’t understand why U.K. doesn’t also make use of the vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS). Steve Kirsch’s website & Twitter account (think it’s Vaccine Truth 2) summarise the extent of the toxicity. Their analysis thoroughly debunks any lying efforts to rubbish their own recording system & claim there’s nothing to see there.
At minimum, there’s an extraordinarily tight relationship between date of vaccination & occurrences of SAEs & deaths. That excludes coincidence as the driver of reports. While it’s true that anyone could make a submission, you cannot do it anonymously.
Theres also clear dose-effect relationship to SAEs & deaths, in that frequency of such events is MUCH greater after the second dose than the first.
Finally, we have what’s called plausibility. We know quite a lot now of the pathobiology of coronavirus spike protein. So when we see huge numbers of severe adverse events related to clotting & bleeding, which leap up days after vaccination & which are most pronounced after the 2nd dose, it can only be ignorance or stubbornness that permits a person to dismiss this awful record.
Like leftist?
What does a straightforwardly descriptive term like “leftist” smear someone as? It’s not a smear term in the way the others are, intended to associate the target falsely with a pre-demonised epitome of supposed evil.
Maybe kids should see their parents being dragged away by the police -then they might start waking up and asking themselves what the hell is going on here!
Parents must hold firm on this and if there is the slightest doubt (or if the school management are Covid lunatics), keep their child off school while the ’vaccinations’ are going on. If the school acts against the parents wishes, this is technically battery and the school will be liable. Anyone who thinks a child of 12 can possibly understand the effects of novel mRNA technology doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near children. Take the fight to schools, they are allowing crimes against humanity to take place on their premises and mustn’t be allowed to hide behind criminal policy.
Consent is nothing to do with the school. The assessment of Gillick competency is the responsibility of the clinician. If the child is deemed to be Gillick competent and gives informed consent then there is no battery either civilly or criminally, this is completely independent of what a person with parental responsibility wishes. If the child is deemed not to be Gillick competent then the wishes of one person with parental responsibility are taken. If there are two people with parental responsibility but have opposing views then this will be referred to the courts. I suggest that you read the whole Gillick case and what the law lords actually said.
I note that this nonsense stems from the polluting poison pill. Once human rights abuse starts, others are bound to happen sooner or later. The current shambles has been a long time coming.
A clinician who engages in Gillick competence assessments in respect of Covid-19 jabbing is not worthy of that description. There are no benefits for children, only risks and no honest clinician should involved in this disgusting activity.
GPs should refuse. I doubt any will though.
They are making too much money. Most doctors are linked into the drug companies via contracts so will not risk losing their blood money
And who is the ‘clinician’ in this case. Are they sending a health professional in the right field. How long is going to be spent talking to a child to assess whether they are Gillick competent? Surely the person jabbing the children is not sufficiently qualified to make this judgement. No, the government want kids jabbed and so kids will be jabbed. The whole thing stinks.
In my opinion a three year old can consent to having a plaster put on a small wound. A 10 year old can consent for a small head wound to be glued. A 12 year old can consent for a head wound to be sutured, with the application of local anaesthetic. It all depends on circumstances. What about the HPV vaccination? Tetanus booster? Both given to teenagers under 16. By the way I do not agree with the recent court ruling regarding puberty blockers.
Gillick competency on this issue needs to be challenged in court. That was over taking the pill, a far cry from assessing the unknown potential dangers of an experimental therapy whose harms to your age group outweigh any protection. Almost no child will have a grip on these issues.
Take children out of school on these days.
And the authors idea that you don’t protest because police will be called is piss poor – how does he think protests happen?
However, the original court decision covers all aspects of medical consent.
This isn’t strictly true. The Government are trying to push this but at the end of the day the Teachers contract is with the parents too. The contracts state that it is the duty of the school to protect children from harm whilst under their care. If a child is harmed at school the parent holds the head teacher responsible. This means the Gillick Competence is not applicable until the child is an adult ie 18yrs. All the lawyers have stated this but the government lawyers are trying to ignore it.
No one can understand the effects of novel mRNA technology, because no one has the slightest idea what they are.
They just enjoy watching their no-cost lab rats.
Only big pharma know the outcome and they will not be honest about their evil agenda
It’s time parents realised that giving children into a government run school system is dangerous and far better to home school.
It’s hard to home school when you’re out at work all day. After work you do the shopping, make evening meal, and then you are too tired to spend 8 hours educating your kids. They have spent all day playing games on their smartphones, and are now too tired to listen to you.
When will it ever be safe for an ‘unjabbed’ child to return to school? The school nurse (who works for a private for-profit company) will still have several vials of ‘Covid vaccine’ in her cupboard for the ‘hesitant ones’.
Don’t forget that on the vaccination form there was a space for a second jab. There could very well be a Round Two coming. Any doubt will be quenched by the announcement of yet another ‘variant’ sweeping the country.
https://twitter.com/sara_gilmartin/status/1439501759681122306
Kaiser Chiefs – musical bigots, or just propagandists for the elites?
People with natural immunity. People with superior, acquired immunity. People with natural immunity. People with superior, acquired immunity. This is the positive langage I intend to use now instead of using the language of the v-word, including the un-v word and anti-v word, I am going to stop using their language and their paradigm and allowing their vocab to dominate the space.
Forgive me for being thick, “People with natural immunity” I think I understand, but not sure if “People with superior, acquired immunity” is not an oxymoron? Please elucidate in you new space dominating terms.
Members of our local ‘stand in park’ group have hand delivered a ‘notice of liability’ to every secondary school regarding vaccinating children, sadly I suspect court cases will be in the pipeline by Christmas.
We sent out by post 400 letters this week end as a follow up to the hand delivered ones a week ago.
“Advice for Parents Concerned About the Vaccination of Their Healthy Children”
My advice:
What are my qualifications for saying this?
You can fit another page from point 4 onwards….totally agree.
Dilemma is where you have kids who are now aged 18+ fighting the peer and propaganda pressure to get jabbed….doing my best to give them balanced info.
My children are well into adulthood.
They decided to take the jab, and the second jab.
As did my wife.
They are (so far?) all well.
As is the unjabbed me. (So far).
I don’t think that the school would have vicarious liability, the local health authority are simply using their premises.
The questions that would need to be answered are:
1) Does the school have a duty of care under health and safety law and/or common law for the children for any vaccine related injury?
2) Is the school negligent should there be an adverse reaction post vaccination?
In Dunblane did the school have vicarious liability after the massacre there?
If a community group use the school facilities out of hours and something happens are the school vicariously liable?
There’s a vaccination clinic at the Pirelli Stadium, home of Burton Albion FC, if something happens to a person shown to be due to the vaccine is the football club or it’s board of directors vicariously liable?
Other non healthcare facilities are used as vaccination centres, do these have vicarious liability?
Voluntarily going out of your way to a vaccine site as an adult is a bit different to the site coming to your child’s school and marshalling the classes through the ‘jab hall’ class by class…
I would still suggest that the school still has no vicarious liability. If the child says to the teacher “no I don’t want to go” then that must be referred back to the person with parental responsibility, if at that point the teacher insists they go then that is different and then the employer could be vicariously liable.
That is the way to stop your child from having the vaccine, get them to tell the teacher that they do not want the vaccination and they are not leaving the classroom. This immediately negates any Gillick competency test because a child with Gillick competency can only consent, any refusal must be referred to a person with parental responsibility.
Under health and safety legislation an employer has vicarious liability for employees actions. There is a common law duty of care, which can exist between a person and their neighbours but also exists in the employee/employee and employer/employee relationships. If a child has an adverse reaction then the only duty of care that would exist is ensuring they get medical treatment if on school premises.
Not going to be easy if they go into delayed anaphylactic shock and their tongues begin to swell, as happened to a friend.
That is my understanding, but I am no Lawyer; it occurs to me that the Governors of the School may also have role to play , whether they like it or not…and they do act in a personal capacity.
Not the matter at hand Big J.
Would you expose your children (if you have any) to life affecting (or limiting) risks that FAR outweigh the risks of the coof?
Simple question.
yes I do have grown up children but if they were school age then no I would not want them to be vaccinated.
As a nurse, now retired, I would refuse to administer it to children as well. I have frequently said on here and elsewhere, the vaccine should only be offered to those of my age and above. It should not be mandatory for anyone. Please do not conflate what I have said previously in this thread to my views on the vaccination of young people.
I feel you’re getting a bit of a raw deal on this John, as I think you are trying to warn people that all the nice notions we (including I) have such as school duty of care etc are basically useless once a child gets into that room with the jabbers instead of teachers. Would that be a correct summary? I’m grateful for the warning at least. We have got our child to write a few sentences in his own handwriting saying he does not want the ‘vaccine’, these are his reasons and signed. I intend to keep him off once I know the jabbers are in town anyway but do you think such a letter is any use?
It sounds good, and should work, but the problem is that children in school are taught to obey the authority of teachers, and if teachers are saying they should take Pfizers concoction to be kind to others, there will be strong social pressure to do so.
We gave him one of those little cards saying he is not to be tested and to be fair when they tried to test him, he just showed it and all was well. He would not normally say boo to a goose so we were impressed.
I think the peer pressure is going to be enormous. Hopefully the fear of the wrath of mum is greater than anything else at the moment. Keeping them off is really the only solution but who knows if we will be given warning.
SB, if any Teacher says that, they are making a clinical/medical judgment that, unless they are registered, practising and licensed, they are imho acting ultra vires – just like La Johnson’s ridiculously and totally ignorant comment about pregnant mothers should be jabbed. She was/is not qualified to comment about this – especially as evidence mounts she was entirely wrong to say “its safe, go ahead” – no testing on pregnant mothers was done because of the expected inherent dangers that might occur ( as I understand).
Teachers and others in a position of trust surely have to be exceedingly careful about what they say; surely a comment like that made in a school/classroom setting is potentially bad news for the teacher, school and Head if post jabbed adverse events happen. Such a comment in that scenario might well constitute vicarious liability with the Head/School (big problem for Academies/Free Schools potentially) as well as coercion – a massive failure of their moral ethical and possibly legal duty of care to minors, but only imho.
Folks should appreciate your considered and principle position but I guess there are a lot of very worried , scared and intimidated people with children <18. My one point of departure is that these injections are emphatically not vaccines by any description – as I have mentioned time and again, Pfizer themselves have referred to them as gene editing injections, so why don’t “we”?
Be aware that 16/17 year olds, although children under the Children Act, can make their own decisions under the Mental capacity act, either to consent or not consent.
Ridiculous. Did the school send letters to the parents informing them of the massacre and inviting them to turn up?
WOW that is a tenuous link. Are you an EU ‘twist the law’ to suit advocate. Dunblane was a very different situation whereby it wasn’t the Head Teacher’s decision to smash a plane into the school.
Wrong tragedy! Lockerbie was the plane, Dunblane the school shooting.
I have always found that “read, think, inwardly digest and then “post” is the way to go …
I believe you are on the right lines – downticks are disappointing in that they indicate no in depth thought; if you are not acting “in loco” , I cannot see how you can be liable – but the Local Health Authority will be and , of course, they are unaccountable; the tax payer picks up the tab eventually. Very circuitous and not benevolent.
Does feel like the way to go is to withdraw your kids from school for a week or more. My wife though I was overreacting until I gave here a copy of the ‘Behavioural Change Unit’ document for cornering people who don’t want the jab. Different techniques for different age groups, the lot.
Now she thinks the same as me. My daughter doesn’t have the smarts to stick to her guns and will cave like the vast majority of other kids when cornered by the lab coats.
This whole thing is disgusting.
Do you have a link to that document? Would love to see it. Thx
https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NHS-VACCINATION-DOS-AND-DONTS-BY-AUDIENCE-COHORTS.pdf
Thank you!
I think you’ll have to withdraw them from school for the duration of the rollout.
inconvenient but once that ‘jab’ is in there’s no undoing it.
My wife is now having second thoughts about taking our daughter out of school ffs.
The only alternative I can think of is getting my daughter to write out a hand written letter stating she does not wish to take the vaccine. As and when she is called, she should hand them the letter, state her position, state that she will not leave the classroom and then return to her seat.
Kids WILL be injured and some will drop dead. Will this make any difference?
Nope: Everybody on the jabbing side will have legal immunity. Pfizer will get its adverse reaction data. Banks accounts will still be filled.
Ah, the good old BI team who thought it was good to terrify people to the extent that many committed (or attempted) suicide, all with the approval of their professional body. It sems that pschologists helping the CIA perfect their torture processes were not exceptional after all.
Seems to me that home-schooling has become the most sensible option for a good parent.
Home EDUCATION. We need to drop that word SCHOOL.
The official term is EHE, Elective Home Education. You get a form from your local authority to declare that you want to EHE your child. You don’t have to teach them 9-3 Monday to Friday, in fact 1-2 hours of one to one teaching is easily equivalent to six hours in a class of 30, especially for primary school age. You don’t have to follow the curriculum, there are alot of home education groups set up in most areas (and increasing daily).
I know that in my area 12 children have gone EHE since term started.
Unfortunately the local authority doesn’t have to supply any resources but there are loads available online.
It’s quite damaging to the kids social development. Friends we know who homeschooled their kids got to the point where the kids were pleading with them to go to school “like normal kids”.
It’s not all roses. Kids should be in school.
3 or so parents getting together and sharing the work-load would help to alleviate that problem
Children are highly vulnerable to peer pressure, and even if they are out of school if they are exposed to the mainstream media and social media conformism systems they will be very vulnerable to it. I would have agreed with you about the preference for schooling when schools were more independent of central state and elite control, but nowadays they mostly function as state indoctrination centres.
The answer is probably small groups of parents getting together to home educate in groups that can function like the more responsive and independent church/community schools from before nationalised control of education.
As you say, it’s not all roses and it’s a huge workload for parents. But little in life comes for free. If my offspring were coming to school age today I think I’d go that route, in the light of the “vaccine” shenanigans, especially.
The answer is probably small groups of parents getting together to home educate in groups that can function like the more responsive and independent church/community schools.
It is an answer, not necessarily the answer.
We certainly were not attempting “Home Schooling”.
We Home Educated all 4 of our children.
The first started school and she was very happy, having a delightful, experienced, teacher whom all the kids loved. (Observation at ‘home time’ when the children took affectionate leave of her.)
We moved home, and it became apparent that she was really unhappy at her new school. As we were in rented accommodation while selecting a new home, we Home Educated until we had settled down.
We then took our daughter to see her new school. The Head Mistress showed us around, all smiles. When I mentioned that we had removed her from the previous school and had Home Educated, her smile became fixed and steel shutters dropped over her eyes … and our daughter remained deschooled.
We joined ‘Education Otherwise’, which gave us contact with other similarly minded parents, and social contact with other Home Educated children. (Naturally, they also played with neighbouring children.)
All 4 of our kids went to the local college to obtain the O and A levels required for University. All 4 graduated.
“Kids should be in school”.
Only if they wish to be in school, none of ours did.
Fortunately my child is too young to be faced with this but as a parent I share grave concerns about this vaccination drive.
It seems that a well written letter would be a good start. But I think the most elegant solution is to simply keep your child at home while the vaccine givers are on site.
If school has 500 pupils and allowing 5 mins per prick that’s 2500 mins or about 42 hours. I assume there would be a team of eager prickers, so with 5 people administering the job could be done in 8 and a half hours. So I think 2 days max. They’re not going to hang about forever.
I’d find out when jab squad were in town and miraculously my child would be unfit to go to school. Problem solved. No consent required!
Fortunate for now. It’s startlingly obvious that this doesn’t end with 12-15yr olds…
Well if they do he won’t be at pre school and I’ll happily take as long off work as I need to ensure someone doesn’t inject him! Simple as that!
This is going all the way down to babies, this won’t stop at 12-15 year olds.
Precisely.
How about pets? Farm animals?
Are these “vaccinations” being recorded?
It might be an idea so that there is evidence if there is a suspicion in some cases that the “consent” is less than free and informed. And also to establish beforehand what measures schools and medics are going to take to ensure as far as possible that the law is followed, and to hold them to it. Of course, better still if you can home school.
It really shouldn’t be that hard: I’ve already convinced my teenager not to take drugs offered by smart-talking adults.
1) Consent form does not mention any of the risks (makes no attempt to offer balanced or comprehensive information)
2) Evades Gillick competence by talking in “baby language”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016819/UKHSA_12073_COVID-19_easy_read_jab_consent_form_CYP.pdf
There’s one glaring mistake, a child under 16 cannot decline consent only affirm consent.
Despite what the government may think, to me as a clinician this is inadequate for consent, if I were to just use this as justification for administering a vaccination then I would expect a fitness to practice hearing with the NMC.
Gillick competency can ONLY be determined by the clinician at the time of the consultation, the same is true for over 16’s under the mental capacity act.
The fact that there are no clear benefits v risks then it cannot affirm Gillick competency.
Consent is not a one off action, consent may be withdrawn at any time.
Surely “informed consent” requires a declaration of the complete ingredients to these jabs; EUA (in the US at least) allows the manufacturers to redact their approval application to “guard” trade secret ingredients – don’t get how that can be allowed if this was a “true” emergency – the recent FDA approval of Cominarty means that Pfizer have had to produce that full disclosure of exactly what sin their concoction within a short space of time which has now elapsed – does anyone know if this the same in the uK with the MHRA’s atrocious decision to grant EUA? If it is, logically I do not see how informed/affirmed consent can be given by anyone, adult or >12, or deemed to have been given – never mind the impossibility of adverse events disclosure on the back of manufacturer confirmed skeleton trials…
Informed consent does not necessarily mean that you need to list all of the ingredients, except for potential allergens AND any animal products as this affects a vegan, vegetarian and potentially religious groups. In the US every advert on TV for medicines such as paracetamol for humans or medicines for animals lists all of the possible side effects. Informed consent should include benefits and risks (including for example allergic reaction, delayed clotting, nausea, vomiting, death, although the last one is usually for a surgical procedure!)
I appreciate your better knowledge. With respect I think you have missed the point; this has been pointed out – cannot remember if it was Stew Peters or the Highwire or elsewhere – that the original Pfizer US EUA application was redacted in parts and the reason given was “commercially valuable trade secrets” – now that Cominarty has been approved/authorised, there is, I understand, a legal requirement, and subject to time limits, to disclose IN FULL what is in the jabs ( this was brought up because graphene oxide was beleived to be a constituent and if so , might be a”redacted” part of the application). I think that time limit has elapsed in the US – not sure what has happened since FDA approval/authorisation – and it appears this is a very big deal because the liability issue changes dramatically at the point EUA status changes.
I was clumsily trying to point out I did not know how this plays out in the UK. If in a similar way to the US, an element in these UK EUA jabs is NOT disclosed and which has KNOWN adverse effects, and such effects are NOT disclosed, then any deemed “informed consent” may evaporate if the MHRA ever approves their use – at least ethically and morally – perhaps because of “negligent or fraudulent acts or omissions”; the liability moratorium may also end dramatically too irrespective of EUA or full approved status.
So my question is “do we know the entire suite of constituent elements” in these jabs? I do not know – If not, the next step surely is how do “we” obtain “full disclosure”?
There are two major problems if this is the form being used as I see it because there is no mention of:
(1) Alternative treatments for covid which we now know are effective;
(2) The advice from the JCVI not to proceed with the injections and the government’s decision to overrule this advice on “mental health” grounds.
It follows, arguably, that no child will have given informed consent (that’s no child), and that every child will be entitled to nominal damages for assault and battery and, in the case of actual injury, compensatory damages for assault and battery and/or clinical negligence.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive (and a potential bonanza for personal injury lawyers).
No, it is definitely not informed consent
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-governments-war-on-vaccine-opponents-could-be-a-legal-own-goal/
Thanks for the link.
Yes, a similar point applies re consent on the part of adults. After all, if you set out to terrorise the population on a false premise, then offer a “vaccine”, people are bound to want it. Informed consent is impossible.
Who would be liable? The clinician acting in good faith and following guidelines? (Bolam test applies) The employing trust? If I believe that I have consent, which I document, then there can be no battery, if a person was convinced that consent was not given then that could be battery plus a fitness to practice complaint to the NMC. By the way this is not a “just following order” defence, the Bolam test is the key legal decision.
The manufacturers have got immunity from liability granted by the government.
Unity News Network alongside Anna De Boiusseret (lawyer) has 100os of small leaflets warning the teachers of their liability. These need to be sent by every concerned group of parents and grandparents. Our Stand in thePark have sent nearly 400 letters out already. It is a pity Toby Young doesn’t work alongside David Clews and indeed the guys at uk column. There are many if us trying to stop this evil already.
It is a depopulation exercise. Some die slowly (over 30 years). Some die quick. Some are sterilised. Some jabs are saline. Some are flu shots.
Plausible deniability…
And in the meantime Big Pharma makes enormous profits with no oversight by our representatives because they are conflicted by bungs.
If Big Pharma isn’t broken up and economically castrated there is no hope of the situation improving.
Ted clipped this bit out.. Google did its best to eradicate it..
Bill Gates “vaccines depopulate”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cCOlxBfZCN06/
It has been known for some time that the agenda is depopulation. Unfortunately the Government seem to be blind to the fact that they are carrying out genocide. It seems to me that successive governments throughout the world (bar a very few) have been slowly deteriorating in competence and patriotism. 90% of European governments are lacking in morality and responsibility. The sweep of bureaucracy and global corporations has created a hidden socialism that is now on the point of achieving what Soviet Russia, Napoleon and 1930s Germany never did achieve.
What is really behind the jabbing with mRNA?
First question that needs answering is “how come the Moderna vaccine candidate was sent for ?examining? to Ralph Baric’s laboratory at the the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in November 2019 three months before the WHO declared a pandemic and 2 months before the Chinese informed the world of the SARS CoV2?”.
Second question; “how come the paper on the PCR testing protocols went from submission to a leading journal to publication in that journal in an unprecedented ‘less than 2 days’ BUT failed to include SARS CoV2 including instead SARS CoV(1)?”
Third question(s) “why is Sweden the only developed country to have followed the WHO advice from 2019 of how to deal with a pandemic?” [It has survived the economic damage inflicted in every other country with no worse levels of ill health and death]
Fourth question; “why, when the FDA’s EUA for the PCR test has been withdrawn due to its inability to discriminate between infections, and the same FDA/CDC have advised that the LFTs be ‘thrown in the bin’, are we still using these tests?”
Fifth question; “why did the Welsh CMO this morning, on BBC Radio Wales, refuse to answer when asked how many doubly vaccinated in Wales are dying of Covid?”
How many “vaccinated” women as a proportion of the following represent miscarriages over the past 6 months bearing in mind when the vaccine was widely introduced for the various age groups
How many vaccinated women are reporting issues with periods and ability to conceive as a proportion of that particular group
How many still births to the vaccinated, how many babies with defects born also needs to be monitored.
Ovarian cancers also need to be monitored over the next few years.
What is to bet none of this will be
I see that the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) has published a paper that concludes that there is no evidence that these mRNA vaccines are safe for pregnant women.
As a cynic who reads about the peer review process being controlled by establishment ‘gatekeepers’ I ask myself “how long did this paper sit in the ‘peer review’ system before getting into public view?”
Since it was well known after the trial protocols were submitted and after the EUAs were sought that NO pregnant women were in the cohorts sought and receiving the vaccines I am sure that the paper was withheld until enough pregnant women had been jabbed to let them cherry-pick the data to claim it is ‘safe’.
Pfizer’s vaccine safety update of 28th July states:
‘Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy’.
https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2021-07/Preprint_Post_Hoc_Publication_Statement_VF.pdf
Meanwhile, in Scotland our CMO is ‘urging’ pregnant women to get vaccinated.
https://www.gov.scot/news/cmo-urges-pregnant-women-to-get-vaccinated/
According to NHS Scotland:
‘The coronavirus vaccines available in the UK have been shown to be effective and safe in the non-pregnant population.’
https://www.nhsinform.scot/covid-19-vaccine/the-vaccines/pregnancy-breastfeeding-and-the-coronavirus-vaccine
So, that’s all right then…
This got my attention when I read it. What was that secret vaccine they were working on I wonder……?
Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine – Jan. 10, 2017
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
May I recommend Dr David Martin and this: The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
You may find some clues in the patents granted to Moderna and others in the years before SARS COV2 was created as a chimera and then unleashed onto the world.
This is simple. There is no possible justification for risking one child’s life, to give an extra few months of life to nonagenarians. I am reminded of Ursula Le Guin’s story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
When will the “vaccine” be prescribed for those with depression, bipolar and other mental health conditions. I understand that according to Prof Whitty this miraculous product can cure mental health issues. I have yet to hear from Pfizer and the rest of the manufacturers with regard to this wonderous new cure. Can anyone update me on when this will happen, or I suppose like everything else Prof Whitty has claimed over the past 2 years it is the accepted truth.
A vaccine to cure vaccine “hesitancy”?
As ‘roll-out’ progressed to lower age-groups my despair increased – barrier between jabs and children was becoming thinner.
One reason I didn’t participate was to shield others from the ‘bad guys’; like a middle manager defending juniors from attacks from above or the self-sacrificing maternal instinct standing between approaching danger and a child.
As I understand it, if parents say no and their child says yes, their child will be jabbed, BUT if parents say yes and their child no, the child will be jabbed.
As I understand consent, ‘yes’ is NOT consent unless ‘no’ is equally and freely available. Government has not made it so.
Therefore, a child’s competence is NOT relevant because they’re not being allowed consent anyway.
‘Informed’ and ‘competence’ are red-herrings government is using to divert attention and, cause anxiety, fear, muddle, uncertainty and division. Yet again.
It’s a ‘set-up’ that gets children jabbed unless both parents say ‘no’ and their child withstands heavier pressure than all but 6M adults have succumbed to.
Jabs cannot be undone if a child is jabbed against their parents’ consent anymore than jabs can be undone if any adult is jabbed without their valid informed consent
The sell off to private companies, many of them American. I don’t think this ‘drive’ to vaccinate has much to do with keeping people safe – more like an excuse in conjunction with the ideology of selling everything as a solution to the struggle of the NHS. Doesn’t anyone see this as a motive for what’s happening?
If I thought that was what was going on I would be relieved. The point is that they know full well these drugs are incredibly harmful and nonetheless want then injected into every human being in the Western world. If it was about profit, they could be harmless placebos. Something much more sinister appears to be going on.
The U.K. next? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58623062 Pfizer is looking for approval for 5-11 year olds. There will be no chance of Gillick competency in that age group, if any clinician says otherwise and ignores parental choice should be reported to their registering body as a fitness to practice complaint as well as reported to the authorities for battery.
Certainly the UK next. Can’t wait to see their attempt at justification when that of the 12-15 group was so desperately weak and incoherent. I hope to have taken my kids out of state school by then. I can no longer trust the State to look after their best interests.
Parents, there is no way the state is allowed to give your child an experimental biological with minimal safety or efficacy data and no long term safety or efficacy data. Do not consent. Consider home schooling.
We’re on the doorstep of an entire generation of children being given experimental gene therapy, with no possible way of knowing what the long-term health risks are, for a disease they are at no risk from.
Has the general U.K. media not bothered to tell the public that, last week, the FDA advisory committee stunningly rejected Pfizer’s proposal to inject all adults with a booster? Rejected 16:2 or 16:3 after an eight hour hearing which can only be described as a public mauling.
I’ve attended many Ad Comms during my long career in Pharma, sometimes on our candidates but usually those of competitors, to learn how both the sponsor (the drug manufacturer) & the Agency (the FDA) summarised the position. That has for decades been the way it was done in USA & for all their faults, it couldn’t be said this stuff was done in secret (the way it is with U.K.’s MHRA & the EMA (which spent most to entire existence in London until the Brexit result).
I’ve never heard anything like the Ad Comm last week. The external experts had nothing good to say about the proposal. It was pointed out that there simply wasn’t any material evidence that it was an appropriate thing to do; nor that it helped protect the recipient; nor that it was safe.
On this occasion, members of the public also had the opportunity to make short presentations. Several were particularly damning. I’d recommend you listen to the MD of the Early Treatment Fund, Steve Kirsch. While he’s not a doctor, he’s a highly numerate MIT engineer & serial entrepreneur as well as having been vaccinated himself. He’s no idiot. He’s attracted several luminaries & that team has spent more time inside the VAERS database than officials from FDA & CDC.
The bottom line is that the Covid19 vaccines kill more people than they save. Even Pfizer’s own data package on its so called 6mo update does not favour vaccination. Comparing the vaccinated cohort with their aged matched controls, the all-cause death rate is HIGHER in the vaccinated cohort.
For young people, I stand by my earlier remarks, that so low is the number of children killed BY the virus that even a moderate assessment of vaccine lethality results in the true statement that mass vaccination of children will kill far, far more than it could possibly save (the latter being zero).
It’s like being in a bad dream. I’m a teacher and have taken a stand at my school which, like so many others, seems to be sleepwalking into disaster. No one bothers doing the slightest bit of reading or research, so when I raise my objections they’re hearing it all for the first time. It’s completely demoralising. Reading the NHS leaflet intended for children today I was stunned and deeply upset by the insulting simplicity of it and its attempts to trivialise potential side effects. Wanted to weep when I listened to the CMO’s pathetic, incoherent and contradictory attempt at a justification last week. As you’ve said for a long time, it’s very hard to see anything about this as benign or well-intentioned and I do wonder what the drivers of this thing actually want. If it’s chaos, division and a societal breakdown, they’re doing a fantastic job.
As a teacher and parent, I’m beginning to feel like both my days in the profession and my children’s in their respective schools is about to come to an end. I feel sick to my stomach about what’s happening at my school in a few weeks and don’t believe I can continue to work there knowing what’s occurred. I read the government’s consent and information leaflet intended for children and wanted to weep. The fact is, we are under attack, I’ve been saying this for 18 months and the insulting bullshit leaflet I read today seals the deal. I think we need to form home education networks and withdraw our children, they are not safe in state schools any more. I have nothing but contempt now for schools who allow this to happen on their site; they, like the government cannot ever be trusted again, we’re on our own now.