WITH the unwarranted vaccination of all children aged 12 to 15 imminent, the critical details of just how Government intend to roll out this particular phase of population poisoning are absent. Other than the leaked information that GPs are to be paid £22 for every child they inject, and an indication that parental written consent will be needed, reported here, little is known.
Reports that the Government is pushing ahead fast contrary to the advice of the JCVI means there’s a considerable risk that the nuances of the child-vaccination protocols – on which parental refusal to consent would be correctly based – might either be sprung on concerned parents at the very last moment, or not at all, so catching them off-guard and rendering them ill-prepared to resist.
Although their right to refuse this consent isenshrined in law – the ‘Gillick competence’ which requires parental consent for medical intervention of underage children except in exceptional circumstances (the finer details of which can be found in Kathy Gyngell’s report here and elsewhere on these pages today) if there is one thing we have learned from this sham-demic, it is that the rule of law itself – not to mention common sense and humanity – can now be abused with impunity.
For precisely this reason, it is of the utmost importance that parents cover all bases and work on the unfortunate assumption that the lawful application of ‘Gillick competence’ may be interpreted by the government not as the exception but as the rule, or simply not be adhered to. It is prudent to expect a certain number of ‘Gillick-casualties’ due either to malpractice or sheer ignorance of the law and the government’s own general immunisation advice, especially so since it appears not yet to have completed its irrational vaccination journey or risked enough lives in its attempt to eliminate this pseudo-novel virus.
To prepare themselves parents must first familiarise themselves with the Gillick competence as originally set out and demand it be followed to a T – not loosely interpreted according to the whims of Whitty or Johnson. Second, they need to scrutinise Public Health England’s Green Book , which contains ‘the latest information on vaccines and vaccination procedures, for vaccine preventable infectious diseases in the UK ’, in order to leave no stone unturned for health professionals and that new breed of people, ‘immunisation practitioners’, information that is stated to be for ‘vaccine preventable infectious diseases’.
Although we know that the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ prevent neither infection, transmission nor the onset of disease, this has not stopped the use of the word vaccine officially in respect to the experimental MHRA intervention, so we can assume that anything contained within the Green Book remains applicable to the SARS-CoV-2 immunisation programme.
Chapter 2 (updated on June 18, 2021) deals with the critical issue of consent. We have capitalised the most ominously ambiguous words of the selected citations – the potential get-out clauses that could disarm and override naive parents, and ultimately excuse vaccine damage to any children who slip the net of lawful, medical procedure:
‘Information should be provided in a way the individual can understand, IDEALLY before the immunisation appointment.’
‘WHERE FEASIBLE, healthcare professionals seeking consent should find out what matters to individuals so that they can share RELEVANT information about the benefits and risks of immunisation.’
‘Ideally’ should not be taken as a get out clause. By the letter of the law, ‘feasibility’ is mandatory, not an optional extra. The ‘advice’ specifies no circumstances in which it is not feasible to find out what matters to individuals contemplating immunisation using an experimental product with completely unknown long-term risks and with documented significant immediate health risks.
As to ‘relevant’ information mentioned, parents need to know that MHRA Yellow Card adverse reactions and fatalities data certainly does ‘matter’ and is directly relevant in the current predicament. Also relevant is the growing body of data from the US and elsewhere on adverse reactions and fatalities in children. For example, buried in the supplementary appendix to the Pfizer/BioNTech child trial’s safety data, seven unspecified ‘severe’ events and one ‘life-threatening’ event were found in the 1,134 children who participated, equating to nearly 1 per cent of them. The full report on this undertaken by the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART), a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists and psychologists can be found here.
‘Young people (under 16s) who understand fully what is involved (Gillick-competent) can also give consent, although IDEALLY their parents will be involved.’
This appears to invert the Gillick competence ruling, which is that the bypassing of parental consent to medical procedures for children under 16 could only be lawful in very specific circumstances; furthermore, a priori a child under the age of 16 cannot understand fully the implications of receiving an experimental vaccine.
That malleable word ‘ideally’ is specious and misleading in this context. It looks as though they plan to use this interpretation to allow all children to give consent regardless of their parents’ wishes.
Parents’ lawful right to be involved in the process of consent, and to withhold it in the best interests of their child whatever their child’s opinion or wish, is especially important in view of the pressure they and their children will under in the school setting to conform.
‘If a Gillick-competent child refuses treatment, that refusal should be accepted.’
Though sounding on first reading to be fair and square, a second look suggests that competence is going to be assumed generally for children who accept and questioned only if a child refuses. Why is the competence of the child who accepts/want vaccination without parental consent not specifically identified?
This is the minefield that children and parents may have to navigate, all in addition to the inevitably hyper-biased vaccine promotion material circulating in schools, peer-pressure, and feelings of alienation born of vaccine hesitancy. They may well need lawyers on hand to challenge what looks to be the government’s wilful misinterpretation of their and their children’s legal rights.
The vaccine-hesitant amongst parents will also have to contend with a phalanx of uninformed parents, a state-censored media, and medical practitioners bribed by a £22.55 incentive for every child they vaccinate. How many children will crumble under peer pressure alone, and succumb to the establishment’s hazardous needling simply to avert half a day’s piss-taking from their friends for being a scaredy-cat; successfully robbed of the hard-won courage they had mustered to say ‘No’?
For help we advise them to turn to Chapter 14a of the Green Book (updated September 3, 2021) which does help anxious parents seeking to combat vaccine pressure and to protect their children. It states specifically with respect to Covid:
‘Not only do children have a lower susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but they are also unlikely to be key drivers of transmission.’
‘Children under 16 years of age, even if they are clinically extremely vulnerable, are at low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, and, given the absence of safety and efficacy data on the vaccine, are not recommended for vaccination.’
To stress, this is valid as of Friday, September 3, 2021.
We suggest parents print this out, laminate it, place it in their children’s school bags and send copies to their teachers, headteachers, to their GPs and or any other hastily devised vaccine ‘hubs’. This is a conclusion supported by top US doctors too.
Better still, should vaccinations be taking place in schools, ensure – as Dr Mike Yeadon suggests – that your child does not attend that day.
Why take the risk? Be under no illusion about what the Government is capable of: injecting children who slip through the handy protocol cracks of their already unforgivable inoculation programme. Their gloves came off in March 2020. Since then the establishment have been boxing in hand-wraps. In all likelihood, this school term they’re going bare-knuckle – against children.
Parents, prepare for all eventualities.
To add to parents’ armoury when it comes to taking a stand against their child being vaccinated is this new succinct but powerful film from the Irish Council for Human Rights, The Doctors Are Speaking Out, introduced by the Irish barrister Tracey O’Mahoney and featuring prominent Irish doctors.
They are Dr Michael McConville GP, Dr Gerry Waters GP, Dr Pat Morrissey GP, Dr Martin Feeley, Vascular Surgeon, Dr Bill Ralph GP, Dr Vincent Carroll GP, Dr Ann McCloskey GP, and Dr Marcus LeBrun GP, whose final words are: ‘I would not administer this novel gene therapy to my children under any circumstances.’
Each expresses his particular concerns about administering this experimental vaccine to children. It covers all the issues parents need to be made aware of. Please watch and listen carefully.