The mother of a disabled son with a rare heart condition has won a landmark case to prevent the state from injecting him with the COVID-19 vaccine she feared could kill him. The Telegraph has the story.
After a three-year court battle, the mother, who can only be named as Sarah, said she had endured a “Kafkaesque nightmare” to protect her son, Tom, who has severe learning difficulties as well as a range of life-threatening conditions.
Mr. Justice Hayden, sitting in the Court of Protection, has now ruled it is “no longer in Tom’s best interests to receive the jab” because the virus “landscape” had changed so much since the peak of the pandemic.
He made the ruling after an American Professor of Paediatrics said Tom was more likely to suffer heart complications – such as myocarditis and pericarditis – if given the mRNA vaccine.
But Sarah says the battle has eroded her trust in public organisations such as social services, doctors and the courts, and accused the Government of introducing a policy that ignores individual circumstances.
Tom’s conditions include a chromosome abnormality which causes severe learning difficulties, meaning he has the mental age of an 18-month-old child despite being 24.
His mother feared the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, which tells cells how to trigger an immune response to Covid, could cause an adverse reaction in his heart. So, she resisted doctors and social workers’ demands that he be injected for the “greater good of society”.
Because Tom was over 18 when the Government ruled that the most vulnerable should be injected during the pandemic, the Court of Protection assigned him a lawyer to act in his “best interests”. That lawyer, along with the local integrated care board, backed calls for him to be jabbed.
Sarah raised £60,000 through crowdfunding and spent her £25,000 life savings to fight the case.
She claims she was threatened with arrest, jail, seizure of her assets and the possibility of her son being removed from their home to be “forcibly jabbed”.
Note the ruling only came because of the changed “virus landscape” i.e., the judge accepted Covid is ‘no longer’ a threat. It’s hard to see how it would prevent mandatory vaccination, even for someone peculiarly vulnerable to side-effects as Tom, during the next confected “emergency”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
There are clearly no lessons learned, like Lockdown’s don’t work and coercion in taking experimental medical cocktails violates Human Rights and the Nuremberg Code.
The key issue here is who prescribes a vaccine? The government or your doctor based on your individual circumstances.
The real tragedy is that she was willing to let doctors stick 72 needles into him before he was five years old, and his disabilities were caused by that “assault by childhood vaccines”.
Actually no. This young man had a trisomy on one of his chromosomes which caused his disabilities.
We’ll take good news where we can find it.
“Because Tom was over 18 when the Government ruled that the most vulnerable should be injected during the pandemic…”
THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC.
Still, glad that some sort of sense prevailed in this horrible case. Poor woman, poor chap… Kafkaesque in the extreme.
Probably no covid either just re-badged ‘flu and psyops. The view of Dr Mike Yeadon and which I share.