THE NHS has a rather lovely, colourful, ‘easy to read’ form to be handed to people receiving Covid-19 vaccines. It explains in simple language why you should get it, what to expect when you’ve had it and how it will protect you from Covid. You sign your name to indicate that you have read the form, and that you understand and agree that you have given informed consent.
The only side-effects the easy-to-read form mentions are a sore arm, fatigue or headaches. Nowhere does it talk about blood clots that you can develop after the AstraZeneca shot, Bell’s palsy, which is facial paralysis that Pfizer has just added to its list of adverse reactions, or anaphylaxis that you can suffer if you’re allergic to any of the ingredients in any of the shots.
Sight of the form is as rare as a balanced BBC Covid report. According to a straw poll of ten people who suffered serious adverse reactions, none had been asked to sign a consent form, which means informed consent was not given. Most get to read about potential serious side effects only after they’ve received the shot.
One woman, who does not want to be identified but let’s call her Julia, whose pro-vaccine father died after receiving the Pfizer vaccination in January, secretly filmed the ‘informed consent’ process at one of the UK’s biggest vaccine hubs. The 12-minute video, taken at the Greater Manchester Vaccination Centre, shows how little information you can expect before receiving what could be a life-changing jab.
It is no secret now that the AZ can cause vaccine-induced thrombosis (VITT), but official vaccinators say that it’s as rare as being struck by lightning, with a one in four million chance of developing blood clots. We know that the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body set up to protect us from Big Pharma, has recorded 73 deaths from VITT, with most occurring in the 50-59 age range, although it is still recommended to that group. Only under 40s are advised not to get the AZ jab.
Julia waits in line for 45 minutes to see the triage nurse. During that wait she could have been reading the public information leaflet that she must be given. At the triage booth a nurse tells Julia she is receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine but will not give her the ‘What To Expect After Your Covid-19 Vaccination’ leaflet beforehand. She tells her: ‘Once you’ve had your injection, you’ll be given an information leaflet, the important information is on page 5.’ (This is information about severe headaches, blurred vision, difficulty with speech, drowsiness, seizures and blood clots. All quite important information.)
Anxious, Julia asks about blood clots and side effects and is told: ‘I see thousands a week, half have side effects half don’t.’ The nurse does not say whether these were serious reactions or the 48-hour flu-like symptoms you might expect.
Julia is asked some basic questions about whether she is taking blood thinners, has suffered an allergic reaction to any vaccine or has ever taken part in a vaccine trial, then proceeds to the vaccine booth. The leaflets she would like are piled high, but Julia has to ask three times before she is given one, though she is allowed no time or space to read it. A team leader is called to reassure her. ‘The side effects you have from the AstraZeneca are the same as for the Pfizer and Moderna,’ she says. ‘They’re all the same.’ Wait though, the all-important page 5 contradicts that and says: ‘Not all Covid-19 vaccines are the same – some tend to cause more side effects at the first dose, others cause more side effects at dose two.’ It does not elaborate on which vaccine causes which.
The UK Medical Freedom Alliance (UKMFA), a campaign group that includes health professionals, scientists and lawyers, are outraged and concerned at the lack of informed consent. The have produced a fully referenced letter which says what information you should expect to receive before receiving a vaccination or any medical procedure. They are clear that the courts have decided that informed consent is part of English law, that you should be given information about treatment options available, what they involve and their risks and benefits. You must then base your decision on that advice. Your decision should be voluntary and not influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family.
Senior UK lawyer and retired army officer Anna de Buisseret, who is the head of the campaign group Lawyers For Liberty, says the whole thing is a shambles. She said: ‘We have had lots of reports that people are not being given the patient information leaflet that actually contains a lot of warnings about the side effects and what you need to do to ensure you have had a clinical individual risk assessment prior to going along for your injection.
‘The Pfizer leaflet says you should get an allergy test for all the ingredients, including the active one. You cannot be informed of that if you’re given the patient leaflet after you’ve had the injection, which is what is happening all over the place.
‘I went to clinics in my local community and have sufficient evidence that they were not obtaining informed consent from people and that people were dying and being seriously injured by the vaccine.
‘If you are injecting another person with this substance, it is entirely upon you [nurse, doctor or health practitioner] as the individual, because it is personal, civil and criminal liability you’re facing [if it goes wrong], to make sure you have obtained fully informed consent, freely given.
‘The problem is that an awful lot of vaccinators are not obtaining informed consent.
‘We [Lawyers For Liberty] are working with a senior NHS whistle-blower who is a surgeon who trains people in informed consent. I asked him to check the protocols that were being given to the vaccinators. He examined them and he said there was nothing in them about the law and informed consent. It was all about how to administer the injection.
‘Nurses and doctors are not routinely taught about the law or routinely taught about Nuremberg and what happened there. It appears the whole informed consent thing is being pretty roundly ignored.’
De Buisseret has tried, and failed (so far), to get the police to investigate the many Covid crimes she is looking into. She said: ‘The Covid response has not been legal, lawful, ethical or moral. So many different laws are being broken us lawyers are absolutely gobsmacked at the number being trashed. Nobody seems to care to uphold them. It is a crisis.’