AS THE catalogue of covid vaccine harms finally hits the mainstream, those who raised the alarm continue to be pursued and punished. Solicitor Lois Bayliss was so concerned after she read that the UK’s four chief medical officers had overruled expert advice made by the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) not to vaccinate healthy children, she decided to warn schools and vaccination centres about potential harms and their legal duty to provide informed consent.
Ms Bayliss felt strongly, like many others, that experimental mRNA vaccines had no business being injected into children. For this she was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by several complainants including the Department of Health and Social Care (DSHC), and the chief constable for South Yorkshire Police.
The SRA, who have received over £1million in funding from the World Economic Forum since 2019, subsequently launched an investigation and there will be a disciplinary tribunal on February 12, scheduled to last four days. The SRA have already dropped three charges but are pursuing three more. However, and this is a real punch in the gut, even if Ms Bayliss wins and clears her name, they have the right to claim their costs which they estimate to be over £90,000.
It seems the SRA will do anything to prove their case, including changing the nature of their allegations – after Ms Bayliss responded to them – not relying on original complaints to build their case, and removing thousands of pages of supportive evidence sent by medical experts from around the world. They also changed crucial wording to make letters of warning she sent to schools sound more threatening. For example, Ms Bayliss stated that the recipients ‘could’ be liable to criminal prosecution but alleges that the SRA’s own solicitors Capsticks changed this to read ‘would’ be liable to criminal prosecution.
In December 2021, Ms Bayliss, former Hampshire GP Dr Sam White, retired police constable Mark Sexton and solicitor Philip Hyland of PJH Law in Lincolnshire, made a detailed, four-hour complaint about misconduct in public office to the Metropolitan Police at Hammersmith and Fulham Police Station. They received a crime number, 6029679/21, and believed the police had launched a criminal investigation. Ms Bayliss said: ‘Four named officers were our point of contact, overseen by a detective sergeant who would not give us his name. We were given a link to upload documents. We continued to upload documents for two months. We thought it was being taken seriously but were told by letter on February 22, 2022 that the case was not being investigated.
‘The SRA had contacted me before this. At the time, I believed I was a police complainant and potential witness.
‘The SRA accused me of endorsing covid misinformation and told me I’d sent misleading, inappropriate, threatening letters to GPs, schools and vaccine centres. I sent no letters to GPs.’
Ms Bayliss, who runs a firm called Broad Yorkshire Law in Sheffield, and worked pro bono for families to help them fight vaccine mandates applied to relatives lacking capacity to decide for themselves, said: ‘It doesn’t look as though I will get a fair hearing. They removed over 8,000 pages from my defence before they sent it to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which left just 650 pages for them to decide whether I had a case to answer.’
Some of the evidence came from teachers who had legitimate concerns. One signed a statement in which he said: ‘He was deeply uncomfortable overseeing the administration of experimental vaccines. He sought legal advice and was given two options: if he interfered with the vaccination programme, he would be held potentially liable, however, if he ignored his concerns and kept his mouth shut, he wouldn’t be liable.
‘He was alarmed that Sajid Javid [who in June 2021 took over from Matt Hancock as Health Secretary] had told 12-to-15-year-olds that they could vaccinate against parents’ wishes using Gillick competency [a law that allows children to overrule their parents’ wishes in health matters].
‘He’d asked for legal advice and more time to decide and was told it was forbidden and he was not allowed to give more information to parents.
‘Another teacher, concerned that the vaccine was in a trial phase and that not to give informed consent was a crime, said in a statement that he was threatened with a disciplinary hearing after trying to inform other teachers that it was negligent not to give proper informed consent. He said that he had spoken with pupils at school and that they had not been told that the vaccine was still on trial. He reported this internally as a safeguarding issue and was immediately issued with a disciplinary procedure.’
In early February 2022, Ms Bayliss had sent two letters to schools addressed to the headteacher and assistant headteacher, and one to vaccination centres. She reminded headteachers of their responsibilities ‘in loco parentis’ – they would personally be liable if harm came to any child because of vaccine injury. The Latin phrase in loco parentis is a legal term meaning that an individual responsible for caring for a child assumes parental status.
The first letter concerned vaccination and the second masks and lateral flow tests. Letter one warned: ‘Should you fail to cancel the immunisation session you will render yourself liable for any losses sustained as a result of the visit, and liability could include criminal liability.’ She explained that informed consent was impossible to obtain because the vaccination rollout was the subject of a police complaint, and that all discussion about safer treatments had been suppressed. She included the crime reference number and rightly pointed out: ‘Most parents, if given that information, would decline to give consent for their child.’
She gave examples of confirmed vaccine injury which included infertility, the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis, pericarditis and myopericarditis, Bell’s palsy (temporary facial paralysis), and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurological disorder which attacks the nerves and can cause paralysis or death.
The second letter addressed the potential physical and psychological harms which could be caused by mask wearing, including fibrosis of the lungs (pulmonary fibrosis causes lung disease), anxiety and continual invasive covid tests. It pointed out that there was no legal, or lawful, requirement to support mask wearing.
Mask advice in 2020 from Dr Jenny Harries, then Deputy Chief Medical Officer, was that the mask could trap the virus and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in. Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, also Deputy Chief Medical Officer in 2020, said he did not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of disease in the UK. Then the World Health Organization (WHO) changed their negative mask-wearing advice to positive later in 2020 because of political lobbying, not because of science.
Ms Bayliss described repeated requirements to perform ‘injurious’ lateral flow testing as ‘assault’. She said repeated abrasion of the nasopharynx with a swab was likely to increase the risk of respiratory infections and that the long-term effects were unknown.
The third letter, to vaccination centres, reminded them of the medical oath: ‘First do no harm’. She advised that they should contact Sajid Javid to inform him that they were cancelling the covid vaccination rollout. She also recommended contacting health authorities and regulatory agencies such as the NHS, Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and General Medical Council (GMC), to advise that the covid vaccinations were under police investigation.
Her letter stated: ‘Should you fail to write to them and assist in the cancellation of the immunisation sessions you will render yourself liable for any losses sustained as a result of the visit and liability could include criminal liability.’
In the UK, and most developed countries, informed consent must be obtained from patients before they receive any medical treatment. It must be voluntary, and coercion must not have taken place. The NHS describe details of informed consent on their website but it was clear that peer pressure in schools and in the general population, including material written by many journalists such as Piers Morgan who called the unvaccinated ‘selfish pr*cks’, equalled coercion, so it was even more important that individuals were given accurate information. The NHS agree and said: ‘The principle of consent is an important part of medical ethics and international human rights law.’
In her letter Ms Bayliss maintained that ‘informed consent is impossible to obtain, anyone injected on site has suffered a battery, regardless of any injury sustained’.
It was a valiant effort which garnered huge support behind the scenes. In pursuing the complaints the SRA are clearly wrong because as far as Ms Bayliss was concerned, the police were investigating crimes against humanity. They had, after all, issued a crime number to two solicitors, an ex-police constable and a doctor.
The SRA have decided not to wait for the results of the UK’s Covid Inquiry which, in Module 4, will look at vaccine development and safety. The chair of the Inquiry, Baroness Hallett, has already heard horrendous stories of vaccine injury, all of which could have been prevented.
The costs of fighting the case could bankrupt Ms Bayliss but she is determined to continue. She said: ‘I will never stop fighting them, they will have to put me six feet under before I stop fighting them.’
The SRA said: ‘We do not comment on ongoing cases.’ The DSHC did not respond.
If you would like to donate to the Lois Bayliss fighting fund, please click here.