I bumped into an old acquaintance in the local shopping centre recently. He knows that I’ve been sceptical about lockdowns and is aware that I’ve declined the offer of any Covid vaccination.
“Mark, I’ve just found out that the pharmaceutical companies producing the Covid vaccines have immunity from prosecution,” he said.
He’s a fairly bright, elderly chap who has criticised the way the Welsh Government has handled the Covid situation and every now again he likes to get things off his chest by letting me know how he feels. I was saddened to learn of his ignorance but not surprised.
He is not alone and, after responding that I had known about the indemnity for some time, he continued angrily, “Anyway, I’ve had my third booster and I’m not having any more!”
I’ve been distracted recently from the issues of the last two and a half years by the World Athletics Championships but found it difficult to switch off from my friend’s comments.
I believe a critical contract was entered into between the public and three main bodies: the Government, healthcare professionals and the MSM. This contract is live and running. The contract is critical because it involves our public health.
In a previous article I explained the importance of informed consent and why I have no doubt that the principles of good clinical practice were abandoned in the name of Covid. Here I want to explore whether the public has been deceived into consenting to Covid policy through a serious breech of contract.
The BBC’s coverage of the World Athletics Championships was excellent. Credit where it is due. The experts commentating and reporting on events really are experts. Most of them have had first hand experience of training and competing at the highest level and have even won World, Olympic and Commonwealth medals and world records. They all seem pretty down-to-earth and I trust them to report accurately. It seems in complete contrast to the so-called ‘experts’ who managed the pandemic. They had never experienced living in any sort of lockdown, had never previously been brow-beaten into accepting a novel emergency vaccine and had never been made to wear masks in social settings. The BBC’s commentators didn’t need to provide models of expected outcomes because the viewers were going to see how things would pan out come rain or shine. The reality and purity of the sports events in a rigorously drug-tested competition was a case of what you see is what you get. Yet, in the case of the Covid experts, what you saw were delusions of grandeur. How can experts have no experience of what they are supposed to be experts about, especially when, unlike the sports commentators, they have the power to radically change people’s lives? Shouldn’t that responsibility and lack of practical knowledge make them (principally SAGE and the JCVI) extremely humble and cautious and willing to explore all options and seek second opinions? Did they warn the Government that their proposed solutions to deal with Covid were experimental in nature, weren’t based on a proper cost/benefit analysis and could potentially be disastrous? Did the Government, the healthcare professionals and the MSM break a critical contract with the public in implementing the resulting policy?
For any contract to be valid certain elements are necessary. For example, there must be an offer or exchange of promises; the mental capacity to understand the terms; and acceptance of the offer and an agreement to abide by the terms and conditions. Some examples of contract relating to these three bodies are as follows:
1. The Government’s pledge as stated here: “We pledge to ensure that:
•every person has a fair opportunity in life no matter who or where they are
•people who are furthest behind, who have the least opportunity and who are the most excluded will be prioritised
•every person counts and will be counted.”
2. The healthcare professionals’ pledge as stated here: “In relation to consent the GMC guidance reminds doctors that any decisions regarding treatment should be made in partnership with the patient and that such a partnership should be based on openness, trust and good communication.”
3. The BBC Royal Charter: “To act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the promise of impartial, high quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”
Taking each in turn, let me give a few examples of contract breaches:
with regards to the Government promise, the people who were furthest behind, who had the least opportunity and were the most excluded were definitely not prioritised. These were the hospitalised elderly discharged at the beginning of the pandemic and the young whose educational development, future health and wealth has likely been compromised. They also include the less well-off who stand to lose the most from the £400 billion wasted on Covid and the resulting inflationary consequences;
with regards to the healthcare profession pledge, the law surrounding consent only recently shifted after the judgement in the 2015 case of Montgomery and Lanarkshire which redefined and modernised the standard of informed consent by introducing the general duty to attempt the disclosure of risks. It established that the relationship between the doctor and the patient was not one of medical paternalism and professional medical opinion. It is a legal requirement for a patient to give informed consent before any treatment can go ahead – without valid consent the treatment could be considered assault or battery. The key issue with Covid is that the risk varies significantly with the age and general health of each individual. Each case should have been treated on its own merits and each individual risk should have been accurately assessed and assiduously and conscientiously disclosed. So, for example, the latest data from Iceland show a healthy child’s risk of death from Covid is virtually zero and that same child’s risk of suffering severe symptoms is practically non-existent (0.06%);
with regards to the MSM, I wish to focus on the BBC as it is the nation’s public broadcaster. We must pay a fee to watch and listen to it and its Charter proclaims its commitment to “impartial output and services to inform, educate and entertain”. I will concede that it may have fulfilled an obligation to entertain, but it also merits scathing criticism because so much information that ought to have been loudly broadcast to provide the ‘informed’ part of consent with respect to the Covid vaccinations was not aired. In this regard, it could be argued that the BBC has been, at best, negligent or, at worst, complicit in a scandal. To make such an accusation I have to provide clear examples. There are only so many examples I have the space to list but we now have the benefit of many months of data collected as evidence since Covid began and for which the BBC should have even less excuse to hide. So here are a handful:
1. that ONS data suggest Covid vaccines give very little protection against death and this data correlates with similar studies in Canada and the Netherlands;
2. That excess deaths are currently significantly higher than normal and these excess deaths appear to have occurred at the same time as the vaccine roll-outs and that the Government is currently refusing to carry out an investigation into this;
3. That a number of cardiac specialists and scientists worldwide have raised serious concerns about the effect of the vaccine on the heart;
4. That false (very low) figures were given for the percentage of the unvaccinated U.K. population in the BBC’s recent documentary Unvaccinated and the participants claim they were misled into taking part and many of their rational arguments and concerns relating to the vaccination programme were left on the cutting room floor by the producers;
5. That Vicky Spit (the bereaved widow of the first vaccine victim to be officially acknowledged and awarded compensation) had her FOI request to disclose information relating to the Government agreement (providing indemnity from liabilty and prosecution) with AstraZeneca rejected; the question put to the Department of Business was “What would make the indemnity granted to AstraZeneca void?”;
6. That, despite the FDA repeatedly promising “full transparency,” and reaffirming its “commitment to transparency” just prior to the vaccine roll-out, they later attempted to block the release of documents relating to the licensing of the Pfizer vaccine for 75 years; that a U.S. federal court rejected this and ordered the immediate release of this information;
7. That witnesses have revealed that Pfizer falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators and was slow to follow up on adverse events; that the forced trial disclosures have revealed concerns of fraud and worrying discrepancies and deficiencies that severely undermine Pfizer‘s early claims that the vaccine is safe and effective;
8. That the risks of Covid to healthy children are extremely small and less than the risk from flu.
In my opinion none of the above examples have been given anywhere near enough attention by the BBC, if any. This shows that the BBC is not impartial and that it is failing to inform and educate as promised. Where is Ofcom here with regards to integrity and credibility? I would like to see its defence of the BBC in response to these questions, or a BBC ‘Fact Check’ of them…if it dares!
I’ve written this article to demonstrate that agreements with professional bodies have been made with the public since the pandemic began and the public has been deceived. In a fair and just democratic society this shouldn’t happen. Shouldn’t the judicial system step in to protect the public here? In a concerning development, the High Court recently rejected a judicial review of children’s Covid vaccination. This appears to disregard the public protection gained through Montgomery and, as Stephen Jackson, the author of the above article, put it: “By this decision the court has finally and fully stepped aside from protecting U.K. citizens. It has abandoned all restraints on the power of the Government when wielded in the name of Covid or any other pandemic that may be declared.”
In the eyes of the Government, the healthcare profession, the media and – now – the judiciary are we – the public – valued citizens or simply their Muppets?
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.
In the final stages of their grasping attempt to keep control they will make more and more blatant attacks on human liberty. At the same time the grasp will always be weaker than it was before. Like unto a Chinese finger trap where the more they try the weaker they become. The final few months will be nasty and when they leave the building there will be a nasty vacuum. It will take decades just to disentangle and rectify the evil structures that they have created
In fairness to the SC justices, the social media scum where only too happy to censor, the federal government and their agents where pushing at an open door.
I’m not sure they were to be honest, although they are large organisations now with many people, some of whom perhaps were happy to be censors.
But on the whole, companies don’t want to be regulated. Social media companies much prefer the early days when anything went and nobody bothered them about what was on their platforms.
So that the government was coercing social media companies to censor people isn’t refuted. It’s just that the harm previously or ongoing to the plaintiffs is unproven, is that it?
The law is an ass.
I think the issue is that the previous concrete harm is now over and the present and future harm is hypothetical. It’s just about plausible, though Thomas dissented and I rarely disagree with him about anything. The underlying principle is that the court isn’t there to scrutinise the executive or legislative branches, but to resolve ongoing disputes between injured and injuring parties – I think that’s a good principle, perhaps in this case not applied correctly.
It’s already important that the censorship is recognised and recognised to be probably illegal. Maybe the mistake was not to have dealt with this while the censorship was ongoing.
In better news the court ruled here that federal courts have the authority to say what the law is even if “expert” executive agencies disagree with them about what the law says. This overturns precedent whereby the court deferred to “experts”. This has potential implications for example on the leeway a body like the CDC has: 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
I don’t even know why it comes a surprise that corporate and state power have become fully merged. Surely this is the obvious goal and ultimate endpoint of power centralised to the maximum. And of course it is a mathematical surety that this snowball will accelerate as it fattens. A runaway train doesn’t do it justice because a runaway train gets faster but doesn’t get bigger. We enter a time of the giant snowball where they are defeated internationally and the only option left to them is to cannibalise their own countries in an effort to extract the last drop of blood. And they will do that because they don’t just want 99 percent of your vitality they want all of it.
The similarities between this case and the Finch / Surrey Council case are remarkable but in contradictory ways.
Leggatt in the Finch case managed to extend the law, albeit in only one direction, such that he deliberately flouted the bedrock of law itself and effectively disregarded the reasonableness principle which is that determinations should be based on what would be reasonable to the common man. To infer that a decision to grant a drilling permit such that the potential outputs of the drilling should be taken in to account is proper cart before the horse stuff. Leggatt made the grotesque assumption that any oil derived from drilling would lead to CO2 emissions without even taking in to account the many ways in which crude oil is used. Furthermore, and by extension he obviously was of the opinion that CO2 is in itself bad. His opinion,which many dispute, was used to rewrite law. Perhaps he could advise his scientific credentials.
In the US the majority judges chose to shrink their viewpoint – just because Government agencies have threatened social media companies in the past does not mean they will use similar tactics in the future. And Joe Biden is really a saint sent to save the U. S. A.
Like virtually everything in the world today language is being stretched, manipulated beyond reasonableness and mangled in order to serve political purposes. Wholly symptomatic of this abuse is the now frequent appearance of the word ‘lawfare’ where the law is being routinely abused in search of malevolent ends – the above two cases being prime examples.
On a more vicious front lawfare is being used to shut down dissenting voices eg Tommy Robinson, Reinar Fuellmich, the ex Ambassador to Azerbaijan (?), Alex Bellfield, Julian Assange and certainly others I have missed.
Orwellian times indeed.
I think the Finch case is nuanced. There is not necessarily anything wrong with the notion that a licence for a new product should include understanding and accounting for the known knowns, and how or if it will leave a trail of pollution, such that you might not want it after all. The problem with the Finch case is that the judges on the one hand believe we know more than we do, and on the other have not invoked a reasonable cost benefit criteria for assessing what we do, and finally have not sought to remedy unclear regulation by sending it back to parliament and have instead made a decision themselves – which actually makes everything worse.
” “That’s a nice little social media platform you’ve got there – be a real shame if the Federal Trade Commission opened an antitrust investigation into it,” etc”
That’s not so subtle. What they are doing is bypassing the 1st Amendment onto social media platforms.
We should remember the social media platforms were very willing to do the Administration’s bidding on most things. The radical left seem to be in control in the whole of the swamp and most of the boardrooms of America.
This is outcome of this decision is best discussed by a constitutional legal expert. Do you have one daily sceptic?
Hi Freddie
The American principle of “a man of standing” i.e. someone who is actually inured and so there is a case to answer (which is a principle which may of course apply elsewhere), is a key reason why the American constitution did not save its people from the overreach of covid, and also will not do so over net zero issues – when in principle it should. It can only fight a rear guard action when of course it’s too late and people have been injured.
The principle skews the basis of law making in favour of the meddling progressives.
Surely any new law or action is not required to have a single man of standing. Instead new laws are based on cost benefit analysis based on your average man in the street – not some literal man of standing.
So where the defence of a constitution is concerned the same principle should apply. If the Government or someone were to do such and such it would likely undermine people’s constitutional rights.
Until we get ‘constitutional court systems’ which can actively defend constitutions based on principle rather than waiting for someone to be injured and then them being able to afford to stand up to a government in court, injustice will continue to reign.