Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A Twelve Year-Old Cannot Give Informed Consent For Vaccination

By Richie Allen | September 6, 2021

Professor Adam Finn from the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) has just been speaking to the BBC. He was on Radio 5 Live’s Breakfast Show. Finn reiterated the JCVI stance, that is that healthy children should not be offered a covid jab.

Finn did say that the JCVI stood by its earlier advice, that children with underlying health conditions should be offered the jab. He was speaking to the BBC’s Rachel Burden. Strangely, Burden didn’t ask Finn for his thoughts on comments made by vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi (pictured) yesterday.

Zahawi told The Marr Show yesterday, that if the parents of a given child refused to give their consent but the child wanted the jab, once the child was ruled to be competent, he/she could overrule mum and dad. Zahawi gave no details as to how it would be determined whether or not the child was competent.

Adam Finn made a point of telling Rachel Burden this morning that parental consent is needed for every vaccine that is offered to children. Burden, either through incompetence or because she’d been warned off, didn’t press him. She should of course have said, “Well Professor, it sounds like you disagree with the vaccine minister. Is that right?”

The government will ignore the JCVI advice. It will roll out the jabs in schools to perfectly healthy children. England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty and his deputy Jonathan Van Tam will give the go ahead.

Parents, you need to seek legal advice at the speed of light. It is preposterous to claim that a child under 16 years-old can give informed consent to be jabbed. You need to move quickly.

The government’s plan is to administer the jabs in schools. Children will come under tremendous pressure to take the needle. It’s fiendishly clever. The government knows that by doing it in schools and not at vaccine centres where parents would need to be present, they’ll be in a better position to overcome the problem of parental consent.

They’re coming for your children. Seek legal advice now.

September 6, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Support our campaign to repeal the unjustifiable and dangerous Coronavirus Act

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW  Defending Freedom | September 6, 2021

THE Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal Assent on March 25 last year after passing through the House of Commons without a vote, such was the panic engendered by media images of overwhelmed medical services in Italy and Imperial College’s massively exaggerated Covid death predictions. The Act granted the government emergency powers to handle the Covid-19 pandemic. These allow the government to limit or suspend public gatherings, to detain individuals suspected to be infected by Covid-19, and to intervene or relax regulations in a range of sectors to limit transmission of the disease, ease the burden on public health services, and assist healthcare workers and the economically affected. Areas covered by the act include the National Health Service, social care, schools, police, Border Force, local councils, funerals and courts.

The Act was originally designed to expire at the end of March 2022 without interruption, but thanks to former Brexit Secretary David Davis it became subject to a six-monthly renewal vote in Parliament. Davis’s amendment tabled on March 21 last year to restrict the Act to a ‘brick-wall stop’ of one year failed, but this and the threat of a backbench rebellion led to the government’s own amendment to the Bill requiring parliamentary renewal of its powers every six months. The first of these came at the end of September 2020, the second in March 2021. Each time, shamefully, its extension has been voted through by a large majority of MPs. Only 24 MPs voted against the first time, and a very disappointing 76 the second time.

The one party to date to make a formal stand against its extension are the Liberal Democrats. Their leader, Ed Davey, has accused the Government of making ‘false claims’ over the need for an ongoing Coronavirus Act to enforce emergency lockdown restrictions. Notable critics to take a stand against it in the Conservative Party include Sir Charles Walker, Sir Graham Brady and Sir Desmond Swayne.

The argument that the Coronavirus Act is not important because most of the restrictions that have been irrationally imposed on society have been under section of the 1984 Public Health Act is mistaken. Nothing has been more symbolic of the slide into tyranny than this rubber-stamped Act. Numerous prosecutions have been attempted and indeed made under its provisions. If MPs fail to repeal it for the third time they will be allowing the government – and indeed the media which they appear to lead by the nose – to continue with the charade that there is a Covid crisis national emergency. There is not.

Powers in the Act remain dangerous. Schedule 22 gives the government extraordinary powers to prohibit gatherings, meaning that protests, vigils and political assemblies could be banned. It has never been activated in England and so is plainly unnecessary, but neither is it proportionate in a democracy. All the time it sits on the statute books it poses a threat to the right to free expression, freedom of assembly and democracy.

The fact is that none of the measures were ever necessary. They were granted in the middle of a panic to prevent a worst-case scenario that never came to pass. Since then the government has used these powers irresponsibly, if not abused them. The Coronavirus Act has made the problem worse, not better. There was and is no justification for extending these powers. All the data accumulated in the last eighteen months says this Act is not needed, as has been documented endlessly on these pages, on Lockdown Sceptics (now the Daily Sceptic), by HART and by numerous other independent scientists and doctors. As James Delingpole put it brutally and accurately at the beginning of the year, most of the government Covid statistical analysis is bollocks and designed to engender false fear.

Now, in less than three weeks, the vote for renewing this unjustifiable Act is coming up for a third time.

In March we advised readers to write to their MPs and set out a specimen letter. We fear repeating this letter is a waste of time. We suggest instead that readers concentrate their MPs’ minds by telling them that if he or she fails to vote against this next Coronavirus Act extension you will be giving your vote to the LibDems next time round, as the only party taking a decisive stand on the Act’s immediate repeal, or any other emergent party taking an equally decisive stand.

We’d also encourage you to sign this Repeal the Coronavirus Act petition here and forward it to like-minded friends.

Finally we invite readers to suggest or design their own TCW Defending Freedom car and window stickers to promote our ‘Repeal the Coronavirus Act’ campaign. And we invite your suggestions, below the line and via email to info@conservativewoman.co.uk on how to further our campaign and which other groups we could or should join forces with.

It’s time to end the charade. It’s time to end this legislative symbol of fear and to take away these tyrannical powers from an immoral government that looks quite capable of using them. Please make your voice heard.

September 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

David Davis: “Vaccine Passports Are Dangerously Misleading!”

By Richie Allen | September 6, 2021

The former Brexit Secretary David Davis has described vaccine passports as dangerously misleading. The Conservative Party MP also said this morning, that he will be opposing the extension of “unnecessary emergency powers” in a vote in Parliament this month.

Speaking to Talk Radio’s Julia Hartley-Brewer, Davis said:

“On the so-called coronavirus passport, it is an idea looking for a problem. It’s not actually gonna do any good. If you have been vaccinated, it protects you! It doesn’t particularly well protect other people.

It stops you getting a very serious illness. but it doesn’t stop you becoming infected and it doesn’t stop you infecting other people. So we’re now going to have a certificate saying we’ve got a vaccine protecting ourselves, and we’re pretending that it’s protecting everybody else.

It’s misleading. Apart from all the civil liberty issues, it’s also dangerously misleading. And again, I hope the opposition parties grow some courage over this, because I think there’s a growing opposition to it on the Tory benches including me.”

Davis was responding to Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi’s confirmation yesterday, that vaccine passports will be required to enter a nightclub and other indoor venues from the end of the month.

On the government’s wish to extend the covid emergency powers for another six months, something which will require parliamentary approval later this month, Davis said:

“We ought to have a freedom bill to revoke every law passed under the emergency powers act.”

September 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

They can’t hide the costs of Net Zero forever

By Patrick Benham-Crosswell | TCW Defending Freedom | September 6, 2021

THE run-up to the COP26 climate change jamboree in Glasgow later this year is probably not going as well as the government would like.  Despite being committed to Net Zero by Mrs May’s undebated and uncosted statutory instrument, the size of the likely costs can’t be hidden for ever and the guardian of the magic money tree, Chancellor Rishi Sunak, is fretting.

I have just produced a short book on Net Zero (brazen plug, you can buy it here) and, having spent several months trawling through the government’s own numbers, have reached the conclusions that the costs are huge (and possibly more than that). Replacing fossil fuels means we have to produce our energy from nuclear and renewables. At the moment they provide just about 10 per cent of our energy requirements. Making up the shortfall needs 30 to 50 Sizewell Cs, or 300 to 500 Small Modular Reactors, or 17,000 to 28,000 new offshore wind turbines. It will also need the electricity distribution grid to more or less quadruple in size. (The uncertainty primarily comes from whether Mr Gove can convert 25million homes to heat pumps, or whether we adopt hydrogen).

The cost of the generation alone comes out at something like £1trillion. Add to that car chargers, heat pumps, hydrogen electrolysers and suchlike and the costs could double. Or more.

The cost of energy will also rise. A report from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in 2016 (when Mrs May imposed Net Zero) forecast that the price of electricity would increase by at least 50 per cent. Which means that the UK is likely to be operating on a higher cost base than those economies which have not yet followed our lead and declared a net zero target. That’s most of the world – only Bhutan, Suriname, Uruguay, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Austria and Germany have followed Mrs May’s quixotic charge. I’m not sure Germany is serious – 25 per cent of its power comes from coal and it is phasing out nuclear power.

Hilariously (or tragically) the government is threatening to crack down on ‘greenwashing’, by which they mean the habit of suppliers claiming that buying their product saves the planet. Yet our political leaders maintain that it will all be fine, that Net Zero is achievable and all we need to do is plant some trees. If they looked at their own data they would know that this is not the case.

To cite one example, every now and then one of them will trumpet about carbon capture, use and storage. Capturing CO2 is tricky and expensive. The world CO2 demand is some 230million tons per year (mostly for the oil and food industries). That’s less than half of the UK’s current CO2 emissions. There is no chance of widescale use of CO2 captured in the UK.

Of course there is already ample legislation on what may or may not be said in advertisements. New legislation is unnecessary.

As we have seen during the pandemic, this government has a habit of deploying misleading graphs and generally being economical with the truth. If they really wanted to improve the flow of information to the public they would apply the current law to their own presentations.

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

September 6, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

Chronic Disease: Still no Cures in Sight

By Dr. Rachel Nicoll | The Daily Sceptic | September 4, 2021

The developed world doesn’t just have to cope with a Covid pandemic – we also have a pandemic of chronic disease (defined as a condition which is persistent or otherwise long-lasting in its effects and for which there is no cure). A rough rule of thumb is to treat a condition as chronic if it lasts longer than three months; in 2012 this amounted to around 15 million sufferers in the U.K. and will be higher now. Examples of chronic conditions include Type 2 diabetes (T2D), obesity, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune conditions, dementia, lung disease, cancer… the list is endless.

Not only have many of these patients been effectively abandoned during the Covid crisis, with appointments cancelled, scans postponed and patients dying at home because they are discouraged from going to hospital, but if they do contract Covid they are likely to fare worse. All the chronic conditions listed above are Covid risk factors, making patients more susceptible to severe Covid and death. Furthermore, many of them are risk factors for other chronic conditions: T2D for cardiovascular disease, obesity for T2D, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, musculoskeletal disorders, mental health disorders and many more.

Why is there still no cure for chronic diseases? By ‘cure’, I am not referring to medical management through drugs that have to be taken for the remainder of life, I mean a complete reversal of the disease, so that the patient can say, for example, that they no longer have Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes. With the trillions poured into medical research over the last several decades, we can be forgiven for asking what scientists have been doing all this time, as there seems to be very little to show for it in terms of reducing chronic disease. Furthermore, part of the definition of chronic disease includes the damning fact that it has no cure. So according to the current medical model, we apparently cannot prevent chronic disease and nor can we cure it; instead we must take ever-increasing numbers of drugs for the rest of our lives. In 2021, after decades of highly funded research, this is truly shocking. Not only is conventional medicine failing to cure chronic disease but the incidence of all chronic diseases is increasing dramatically.

Let me provide some examples:

Obesity
In the U.K., 2019 figures show that 28% of adults are obese and a further 36.2% are overweight. Obesity incidence is now occurring at considerably younger ages, with 2019 data showing that 10% of children aged 4-10 are obese and 21% at age 10-11. The incidence of obesity is rising rapidly: there were four times as many hospital admissions with a diagnosis of obesity in 2016/17 compared with 2009/10.

Diabetes
Ten per cent of all people aged over 40 in the UK are now living with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes; this amounts to 4.7 million of us, expected to reach 5.5 million by 2030. This compares to 1.4 million in 1996. The problem is global; the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that the number of people with diabetes rose from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014. Between 2000 and 2016, there was a 5% increase in premature mortality from diabetes.

Autoimmune conditions
Many autoimmune conditions are becoming more common, with some increasing in incidence by as much as 9% each year. In the U.K., four million people are known to be living with at least one autoimmune condition, and many with several autoimmune conditions at the same time. Rheumatoid arthritis is increasing at 7% per year, Type 1 diabetes by 6.3%, coeliac disease by up to 9% per year.

Cancer
According to Cancer Research U.K., there are over 164,000 cancer deaths in the U.K. each year, which is about 450 each day. One in two people in the U.K. born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime. In the U.S., cancer incidence increased by 12% between 1994 and 2016; in the 1940s, one in sixteen had a cancer diagnosis; this had increased to one in three by 2018.

Dementia
There are currently around 850,000 people with dementia in the U.K. but this is projected to reach 1.6 million people in the U.K. by 2040. The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, while in the U.S., deaths from AD have risen 145% between 2000 and 2017. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report that the number of people living with the disease doubles every five years beyond the age of 65. Most worryingly, those with early onset dementia have increased by 200% since 2013.

Cardiovascular disease
For some years cardiovascular disease mortality has been declining, despite increasing incidence of disease. However, in recent years, the rate of decline in CVD mortality has slowed in most developed countries, particularly at ages 35-74 years, and is now rising in 12 out of the 23 nations studied in 2017, including the U.K., the U.S. and Germany.

Autism
In the U.K., there was a sharp increase in the prevalence rates of autism in U.K. schools between 2010 and 2019. Autism currently affects 1–2% of the UK population – that is one per 100 children and two per 100 adults. According to the U.S. CDC, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the fastest growing developmental disability, affecting one in 59 children (1970s: one in 5000). Prevalence has increased 10-17% each year over the last several years. It has been described as an ‘autism tsunami’.

Prior to COVID-19, according to the Kings Fund, people with long-term conditions accounted for about 50% of all GP appointments, 64% of all outpatient appointments and over 70% of all inpatient bed days. Of course, we have far fewer GP appointments now as a result, so this figure for the last couple of years will be artificially lowered and will not represent the true needs of patients with chronic conditions.

The U.S. is so concerned about the ‘pandemic of chronic disease’ that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has recently undertaken a new initiative focusing on the increasing number of patients with multiple chronic conditions, estimated to affect more than 25% of Americans and consume 66% of US healthcare costs. The objective is to use evidence-based research to improve the care offered to these patients. It is notable that there is no objective to prevent or cure these multiple chronic diseases.

So what is going on? Even allowing for improved diagnostic techniques possibly increasing incidence rates, it is perfectly clear that there is no decline in incidence of these chronic diseases through provision of improved prevention and treatment. Chronic disease used to be something one accepted in old age, but this summer saw the publication of the 1970 British Cohort Study, which periodically tracks the lives of about 17,000 people. This showed that around one in three people in their late 40s has multiple chronic health issues.

Yet during the Second World War, we were apparently extremely healthy, despite rigorous food rationing. So what has changed over the last 70 years? Certainly not our genes, because although genes do evolve, they do not evolve to this extent in such a short period of time. Instead, we have introduced many more highly toxic chemicals into our food, our water and our air. We eat more, we eat more unhealthy foods and we have become ‘couch potatoes’.

Surely it is time for our Government and National Health Service to address the elephant in the room and acknowledge the extent to which our health is being damaged? Introducing a sugar tax and similar measures is just fiddling on the margins, playing lip service to improving health without actually tackling the issue head on. It is also time for the U.K. population to demand better from their government and healthcare providers? Without a complete reset of the medical model, we do not have ‘health care’, we have ‘disease care’.

Maybe it is also time to accept that the vast majority of medical research has not provided, and is not going to provide, a cure for chronic diseases. All it has achieved is improved patient ‘management’, usually drug-induced symptom suppression. This is a far cry from Sir William Osler’s precept: “One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.”

While it is true that most of the medical research is carried out in the U.S., nevertheless, the U.K. does undertake some research of its own. Expenditure on research in 2018/19 amounted to just over £1.6 billion, while overall healthcare spending in 2019 was £225 billion. In 2011, 70% of the U.K. healthcare budget was spent on chronic disease; it is likely that by 2019 that percentage would have increased but even if it has not this means that around £160 billion is devoted to ‘managing’ chronic disease. So using the most recent figures available before distortion by Covid, we spend £1.6 billion on medical research, only a proportion of which relates to chronic disease, compared to the current chronic disease care costs of £160 billion, i.e., just 1%. Furthermore, evidence suggests that less than 1% of high quality medical research is translated into clinical practice, meaning that only 0.01% of the £1.6 billion spent on medical research could actually be impacting clinical practice (i.e., £160,000). Surely our research budget could be better spent?

As I was writing this article, a timely email arrived informing me about Public Health Collaboration, a group of doctors and other health professionals, headed by Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who have launched a rival to Public Health England (PHE) and its successor, the U.K. Health Security Agency, to help combat obesity, poor diet and medical misinformation. The founders claim that PHE has failed in its responsibilities to the public, while the NHS can no longer cope with the demands placed on it by chronic disease. They point out that the two major industries, food and pharmaceuticals, mislead for profit and are the major root of our healthcare crisis. Unhealthy food and toxic chemicals – I rest my case!

Rachel Nicoll PhD is a Medical Researcher.

September 5, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Children can get Covid-19 vaccine even if their parents are opposed: UK minister Zahawi

RT | September 5, 2021

Asked by Times Radio’s Tom Newton Dunn what would happen if a teenager’s parents said no to vaccination but the teenager said yes, UK vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi said they would still be able to get jabbed without permission.

Claiming that the NHS “is really well-practiced in this because they’ve been doing school immunisation programmes for a very long time,” Zahawi told Newton Dunn on Sunday said that “what you essentially do is make sure that the clinicians discuss this with the parents, with the teenager, and if they are then deemed to be able to make a decision that is competent, then that decision will go in the favour of what the teenager decides to do.”

Newton Dunn questioned, “So to be clear, the teenager can override the lack of parental consent? If a teenager really wants a jab and is only 15, the parents say no, the teenager can have it?” to which Zahawi responded, “They’d need to be competent to make that decision, with all of the information available.”

Bizarrely, on the same day, Zahawi told Sky News that children would require parental consent to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

Asked by Sky News’ Trevor Phillips whether he could “assure parents that if there is a decision to vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds, it will require parental consent,” Zahawi declared, “I can give that assurance, absolutely.”

Despite the fact that the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refused to recommend on Friday that healthy children between the ages of 12 and 15 be vaccinated against Covid-19, given they are considered extremely low risk, the government is still pushing for vaccination – with The Times newspaper reporting that child vaccination could occur as early as next week.

JCVI’s deputy chairman, Professor Anthony Harnden, noted on Saturday that “the health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds” are only “marginally greater than the risks,” and said that any decision should ultimately require “parents’ consent.”

“Both the teenagers and the parents need to be involved in that choice,” he argued.

The age of consent in the UK is 16.

On Friday, protesters stormed the London headquarters of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in protest of the government’s likely intention to vaccinate children under the age of 16.

September 5, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

UK data tables on September 3 say delta causes less mortality and less % of admissions than alpha or beta

By Meryl Nass, MD | September 4, 2021

This briefing provides an update on previous briefings up to 20 August 2021:

Technical briefing 22, 3 September 2021

On pages 15-20 (Table 4) we see the following (I will use (I) for inclusion and (E) for exclusion, which are described below:

% admitted from the ER  (E)           (I)           Mortality rate, overall

alpha  < 50 years                          1.0%        1.4%            0.1%

alpha  > 50                                    5.3%        8.6%            4.8%

beta   < 50                                    1.0%         1.5%             0.2%

beta.  > 50                                    4.2%          9.0%            4.2%

delta  < 50                                    0.7%          1.2%            0.0%

delta  > 50                                    2.8%          6.2%            2.3%

Below are the odd inclusion and exclusion criteria.  But it really doesn’t matter which you use, for delta is milder using either, both in terms of deaths and in terms of percent hospitalized from the ER.

# Inclusion: Including cases with the same specimen and attendance dates

‡ Exclusion: Excluding cases with the same specimen and attendance dates. Cases where specimen date is the same as date of emergency care visit are excluded to help remove cases picked up via routine testing in healthcare settings whose primary cause of attendance is not COVID-19. This underestimates the number of individuals in hospital with COVID-19 but only includes those who tested positive prior to the day of their emergency care visit. Some of the cases detected on the day of admission may have attended for a diagnosis unrelated to COVID-19. ^ Total deaths in any setting (regardless of hospitalisation status) within 28 days of positive specimen date.

On page 11 the report claims that the risk of hospitalization is greater for delta (which is undermined by the data table 4 in the report) but it cites some other data set to make the point:

“The crude analysis indicates that the proportion of Delta cases who present to emergency care is greater than that of Alpha, but a more detailed analysis of 43,338 COVID-19 cases indicates that the risk of hospitalisation among Delta cases is 2.26 times greater compared to Alpha (Twohig and others, 2021 ).”

While the proportion who present to the ER with delta may be greater, this could be a function of all the fearmongering about the delta strain.  The data presented, however, are very reassuring about delta mortality and hospitalization rates.  The data are incredibly reassuring about young people:  those under 50. Only 0.03% have died (my calculation) which is counted as 0% in Table 4. A considerably lower proportion than for alpha or beta.

I have omitted the other variants here because there were less than 500 total cases identified for each in the Table.

September 5, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Legal Information About How To Refuse Vaccine Mandates, Etc.

Weston A Price Foundation, London Chapter | July 27, 2021

Below is a helpful guide for anyone in the common law nations (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc) concerned about unlawful impositions of COVID19 government mandates on vaccines, masks, exemptions, etc.

Vaccines in UK are not mandatory. There is an exemption on evidence of medical reasons and the Supreme Court recognises at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. See Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11  https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0136-judgment.pdf …In R Wilkinson v Broadmoor : [2001] EWCA Civ 1545

In that case Lady Justice Hale, Supreme Court President, confirmed that forced medical procedure without informed consent “may be sued in the ordinary way for the (common law) tort of battery”.  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1545.html …In the judgement it was held that acting under statutory authority provides no defence, therefore the Employer will be guilty of coercion on the threat of battery with regards to unlawful dismissal if express evidence of denial of informed consent are unlawfully rejected.This will result in a breach of contract and also a Tort that can be sued.

The Above Is Why Mask “Mandate” Exemptions Were Self Certified.

It is unlawful for Doctors to interfere with the process of free and informed consent. Informed consent is defined in Montgomery as follows:

  1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
  2. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments (and forms of testing).
  3. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the medical intervention and the material risks of declining it.If consent is given but the Patient subsequently proves that information provided at the time breached the above common law test of informed consent, the Tort of battery is committed and the medication is unlawful.

The High Court has found children incapable of providing Gillick Competency for experimental medicines with unknown long term effects. Schools therefore risk being sued for battery if ignoring Parental preferences.

See Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf …

These principles are discussed without reference to case law on this important NHS page on Free and Informed Consent and Gillick Competency.  See:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/ …

The fundamental common law right to free and informed consent, based on the ancient Tort of battery (tresspass to the person), are valid in all 16 Commonwealth Realms and both the Republic of Ireland and USA, where English common law is retained as a body of law.

In Ireland, evidence that English common law rights are retained can be found in the Statute Revision Act (2007) which retained Magna Carta and most of the English Bill of Rights (1688) and much, much more.  http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/enacted/en/html …

In USA, English common law rights are retained by the 9th Amendment of the Constitution

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”, hence why US courts refer to them.  https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-

9/ … Law that provides rights sit above normal laws in English law and provide lawful excuse to statutory obligations with this acknowledged by courts. see Art.29 Magna Carta (1297), which states: “we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/XXIX …

Another case to read is Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 62 regarding Doctor’s obligation to provide information to inform consent.  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/62.html …

Happy for Solicitors to DM and work with me or folk who want to work on template letters to send out.For those not familiar with our organisation, here are the articles we have written on Covid.  See: https://www.westonaprice.org/coronavirus/

Covid passports also recognise self certified free and informed consent.

“If you have a medical reason which means you cannot be vaccinated or tested, you may be asked to self-declare this medical exemption.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass …

Also see Art.IV Acts of Union (1706-7):

“That all the Subjects of the UK of GB shall from & after the Union have full freedom & Intercourse of Trade & Navigation to & from any port or place within the said UK & the Dominions” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/4 …

For our friends in New Zealand, you also have these common law rights, but additionally, Art.11 of your 1990 Bill of Rights states: ”Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.” https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html …

Full thread

September 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tories collaborate with Sturgeon to impose vaccine passports on Scotland

By Gary Oliver | TCW Defending Freedom | September 3, 2021

UNLESS a majority of MSPs are prepared to defend freedom – don’t laugh – Scotland will soon become the first part of the UK to impose vaccine passports.

Subject to the formality of a vote next week at Holyrood, from later this month Scots who wish to enter nightclubs, attend music festivals and large-scale concerts or be part of a five-figure football crowd, must be double-jabbed – and, crucially, be willing to prove it.

The foregoing are just some of the social activities in Scotland which First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has decreed off-limits to healthy people.

Addressing the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, Sturgeon justified her malevolent measure because ‘case levels are 80 per cent higher now than they were last week and they are five times higher than four weeks ago’. Yet that five-fold rise over the past month continues to have negligible impact on the more important statistics: of 1,099 deaths in Scotland during week ending August 29, only 48 were ‘involving Covid’ – a weekly total and proportion (under 5 per cent) which has been consistent since mid-July.

The spiralling number of so-called cases is largely irrelevant and says only that Covid is circulating in Scotland amongst an adult population which already is overwhelmingly double-jabbed. This seems entirely consistent with recent findings that the fully vaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus – a fact which, alone, renders redundant Sturgeon’s case for vaccine passports.

Spuriously presented as the benevolent alternative to another lockdown, the principal purpose of the policy is of course what health secretary Humza Yousaf euphemistically terms ‘incentivising vaccination’ – code for coercion of the reticent. Indeed, this week Nicola Sturgeon reiterated her amoral aim of unnecessary universal vaccination and restated her dastardly desire to stick needles into schoolchildren for whom the Covid vaccine is all risk and no personal benefit: ‘We still await advice from the JCVI [Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation] on vaccinating all 12- to 15-year-olds and I very much hope the evidence will allow the JCVI to give a positive recommendation very soon, and we stand ready to implement that if it is the case.’

Shameful. We are also expected to welcome Sturgeon’s assurance that her forthcoming medical apartheid will apply only ‘in very limited settings and never for public services such as transport, hospitals and education’.

Never? Believe that at your peril.

She expects us to be pathetically grateful that ‘certification rules in several other countries cover a far wider range of venues than the ones we are currently considering for Scotland’, and take comfort from her tartan tyranny being less draconian than elsewhere – at least for the moment.

Far from defending freedom, the spineless Scottish Conservatives are contemptible collaborators. Murdo Fraser, the shadow spokesman for Covid Recovery, was already a proponent of vaccine passports: when the SNP had earlier expressed scepticism, fatuous Fraser advocated the abomination as a ‘reasonable proposition’ and a ‘reasonable trade-off for people’. 

His leader’s response to the First Minister’s statement was even more lamentable. Instead of speaking up for liberty and personal autonomy, the complaint from Douglas Ross was that ‘the SNP Government is now introducing vaccine passports at the last minute’; depressingly, he bemoaned the Nats ‘wasting months that could have been spent making proper preparations’. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9947533/Nicola-Sturgeon-wants-Scots-use-vaccine-passports-enter-clubs-attend-Premiership-games.html

Pathetic. The only party at Holyrood seemingly prepared to oppose these biometric badges is the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

For once, the lack of LibDem representation in parliament – the party currently has only four MSPs – is a matter of regret. New leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has at least been refreshingly forthright: ‘I will state this clearly where others have not: I and my party are fundamentally opposed to vaccine passports as a matter of principle.’

This is the correct stance. Unfortunately, operators who will be most affected, such as the hospitality and entertainment sectors, are already falling into the trap of questioning the inconsistencies and impracticalities of implementation. Instead of conceding ground by quibbling over detail, it is the principle of vaccine passports which must vehemently be resisted. … Full article

September 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Pro Forma Legal Letter For Parents of 12-15 Year-Olds Who Don’t Want Them to Get Jabbed

Lawyers For Liberty UK | September 2, 2021

Are you a parent? Is your 12-15 year old going back to school today? Are you worried about your child being given a Covid vaccine without your permission? Have you communicated with the school, but feel like you are being ignored?

Maybe you are concerned that ‘Gillick Competence‘ will be used to get your 12-15 year-old to make this complex decision alone?

Or that your child will be coerced or peer-pressured into making a decision without access to the full facts?

Lawyers for Liberty in association with the Jonathan Lea Network and Powerless 2 Powerful Parenting have created an anonymous “request a letter” to go from Lawyers for Liberty to your child’s school to let them know of the legal consequences of relying upon a child’s consent for a Covid vaccine, especially if a parent has specifically not consented.

We, as Lawyers For Liberty UK, will send an anonymous letter or email to schools on behalf of parents who are concerned about schools relying on their child to make a decision about whether or not to get jabbed.

If you’d like Lawyers For Liberty to send a letter or email on your behalf, fill in this form. You can read a note on the legal issues involved here and the pro forma letter here.

September 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

UK Schoolchildren To Be Covid Vaxxed With Or Without Parental Consent

ALERT: ALL PARENTS IN U.K. WITH CHILDREN AGED 12 – 15 years

By Dr. Mike Yeadon | Health Impact News | August 26, 2021

I’ve just been informed via someone senior in the vaccination authorities that they will begin VACCINATING ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN AGED 12 – 15 years old STARTING SEPTEMBER 6th 2021.

WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

Children are at no measurable risk from SARS-CoV-2 & no previously healthy child has died in U.K. after infection. Not one.

The vaccines are NOT SAFE. The USA reporting system VAERS is showing around 13,000 deaths in days to a few weeks after administration. A high % occur in the first 3 days. Around 70% of serious adverse events are thromboembolic in nature (blood clotting- or bleeding-related).

We know why this is: all of the gene-based vaccines cause our bodies to manufacture the virus spike protein & that spike protein triggers blood coagulation.

The next most common type of adverse events are neurological.

Death rates per million vaccinations are running everywhere at around 60X more than any previous vaccine.

Worse, thromboembolic events such as pulmonary embolisms, appear at over 400X the typical low rate after vaccination.

These events are serious, occur at a hideously elevated level & are at least as common in young people as in elderly people. The tendency is that younger people are having MORE SEVERE adverse events than older people.

There is literally no benefit whatsoever from this intervention. As stated, the children are unquestionably NOT AT RISK & vaccinating them WILL ONLY RESULT IN PAIN, SUFFERING, LASTING INJURIES AND DEATH.

Children rarely even become symptomatic & are very poor transmitters of the virus. This isn’t theory. It’s been studied & it pretty much doesn’t happen that children bring the virus into the home. In a large study, on not one occasion was a child the ‘index case’ – the first infected person in a household.

So if you’re told “it’s to protect vulnerable family members”, THAT IS A LIE.

The information emerging over time from U.K. & Israel is now showing clearly that the vaccines DO NOT EVEN WORK WELL. If there’s any benefit, it wanes.

Finally, the vaccines ARE NOT EVEN NECESSARY. There are good, safe & effective treatments.

IF YOU PERMIT THIS TO GO AHEAD I GUARANTEE THIS: THERE WILL BE AVOIDABLE DEATHS OF PERFECTLY HEALTHY CHILDREN, and severe illnesses in ten times as many.

And for no possible benefit.

KNOWING WHAT I KNOW FROM 40 years TRAINING & PRACTISE IN TOXICOLOGY, BIOCHEMISTRY & PHARMACOLOGY, to participate in this extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than MURDER.

It’s up to you. If I had a secondary school age child in U.K., I would not be returning them to school next month, no matter what.

The state is going to vaccinate everyone. The gloves are off. This has never been about a virus or public health. It’s wholly about control, totalitarian & irreversible control at that, and they’re nearly there.

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WIDELY.

With somber best wishes,
Mike

September 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »