September 22, 2021 from Architects for Social Housing (ASH)

Table of Contents

Part 2. Virtue and Terror

    1. Censorship and Consent
    2. How to ‘Vaccinate’ UK Children
    3. Virtue and Terror
    4. Crime and Punishment in the UK Biosecurity State

1. Censorship and Consent

On 9 February, 2021, Luke Garrett, a 20-year-old Scottish man with muscular dystrophy and autism but otherwise fit and well, died less than 12 hours after being injected with the messenger RNA Pfizer ‘vaccine’. Mr. Garrett, who had been shielding for a year, had been eagerly waiting for the ‘vaccine’, he said, so that he could resume his life. Injected at 3pm the previous day, he almost immediately developed a high temperature followed by severe muscle pain, particularly in the injected arm. Mr. Garrett then went into a seizure, which he had never had before, and began foaming at the mouth. His mother performed CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on him until the paramedics arrived after 1am and gave him an adrenaline shot, before promising additional medical care would arrive in two hours. At 4am, when the hospital rang to ask whether he still needed help, Luke Garrett was dead. In response, an unidentified Scottish Government spokesman said:

‘The vaccines are safe and approved by regulators — including the MHRA — and we encourage all those who are offered to get vaccinated. No causal link has been made between the Pfizer vaccine and any fatality in the UK. The MHRA is alerted of all deaths where a patient was recently vaccinated and they will draw their own conclusions. It would be inappropriate to comment further on any individual case.’

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said:

‘The current evidence does not indicate an association between the COVID-19 vaccines and onset of seizure events in people with or without a prior history of seizure.’

Dr. Joy Tomlinson, Joint Director of Public Health at NHS Ayrshire and Arran, where the Ballochmyle Medical Practice had administered the ‘vaccine’, said:

‘We continue to urge those offered a vaccination to take up their appointment. The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks and it continues to be a safe and effective vaccine.’

Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the ‘vaccine’, said:

‘We take adverse event reports very seriously. To date, millions of people have been vaccinated with our vaccine. It is important to note that serious adverse events can occur in the population that may be unrelated to the vaccine.’ 

Finally, Muscular Dystrophy UK said:

‘The MHRA has confirmed to us that their analysis of data relating to people who have received a Covid-19 vaccine has not shown any linkage between having a muscle-wasting condition and experiencing vaccine side-effects. We are not clinically trained ourselves, so rely on collaborations with leading neuromuscular clinical and healthcare professionals to help us to provide the information and advice to do this.’

At any other time, this blanket denial of any causal connection between the death of this young man and an experimental ‘vaccine’ by the pharmaceutical company that produced it, the medical practice that administered it, the charity that recommended it, the regulatory agency that authorised it, and the government pushing it as part of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, would be extraordinary, unbelievable, sinister and worthy of investigation. In the UK biosecurity state built on the justification of this manufactured crisis, it’s now the New Normal.

For publishing the figures on adverse drug reactions and deaths following injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ that I discussed in Part 1 of this article — all of which were either quoted directly from the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency’s own website or calculated from the Government’s own estimation of the percentage of ADRs reported — my account was temporarily suspended by Twitter for what it said was ‘spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.’ In addition to this suspension, my post was removed because, Twitter claimed, it included ‘content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information’. For information on COVID-19, Twitter directed me to a World Health Organisation webpage containing ‘advice for the public’.

Now, anyone who dares to question the orthodoxies of the UK biosecurity state has come to expect the enforcement of a level of censorship we wouldn’t believe was possible in this country 18 months ago; and most of us have experienced something similar to this or far worse by now, so I don’t want to dramatise its impact. Initially, I appealed the decision, but after a week I’d received no response from Twitter and decided to accept the removal of this post; then, as soon as my account was restored to activity in a further 12 hours, I updated the figures from the most recent MHRA information and reposted it. But neither do I want to normalise what is an interference not only with my individual freedom of expression and conscience, both of which are protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also — and more seriously within the context of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme — a breach of one of the conditions of any medical treatment, which is the informed consent of the person being treated. In this section, I want to look at the requirements of consent under international and UK law and medical practice, and show how the UK ‘vaccination’ programme has manufactured the consent of the UK public through censorship of the information by which those requirements can be met.

Let’s start with the Nuremberg Code, which was published in 1947 following the Nuremberg Trial of medical doctors indicted for crimes against humanity during the 12 years of the Third Reich, and in doing so established new standards of ethical behaviour to which professionals conducting medical experiments are expected to adhere. It is mere sophistry to suggest, as the consistently pro-biosecurity website FullFact has done, that the Nuremberg Code does not apply to the UK ‘vaccination’ programme because it is not experimental. First, the clinical trials for the AstraZeneca viral-vector ‘vaccine’ won’t be completed until February 2023, until May 2023 for the mRNA Pfizer ‘vaccine’, and until October 2022 for the mRNA Moderna ‘vaccine’. Second, as experimental ‘vaccines’, they have only been granted temporary authorisation by the MHRA under The Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, in which the newly-introduced Regulation 174a modified The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed medicines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in response to certain threats to public health. Third, although tested on human subjects for several infectious diseases including rabies and influenza, the messenger RNA bio-technology employed in the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/NIH ‘vaccines’ has never before been authorised for emergency use on humans as part of a mass ‘vaccination’ programme. Finally, as I laid out in Part 1 of this article, both the documented record and estimated number of adverse drug reactions and deaths following injection with these ‘vaccines’ are out of all proportion to previously-issued vaccines, and clearly indicate their experimental and, indeed, dangerous nature. Given which, the ethical principles of the Nuremberg Code cannot be so easily dismissed — as so many questions and objections to the UK ‘vaccination’ programme have been dismissed — by ‘Fact Check’ claims by tech companies, news outlets and social media sites according themselves the right to tell us what we can and cannot read, what is and isn’t true.

The most important standard of the Nuremberg Code, and the one most violated by the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, is the first, which states:

‘The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

‘The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.’

It is by now a matter of public record that, in the UK as in every other country that has imposed coronavirus-justified restrictions on the population, the ‘vaccination’ programme has violated the conditions under which voluntary consent can be given: through daily misinformation about the threat of COVID-19 to public health and therefore about the necessity of being ‘vaccinated’, through the censorship of information about the level of risk and danger to health of being ‘vaccinated’, and through making compliance with this programme a condition of our freedoms, and in doing so of exerting coercion over the free choice of the individual to choose to participate in this experimental ‘vaccine’ programme.

However, even if we accept claims by the pharmaceutical companies producing them, the media companies promoting them and the medical institutions administering them, that the UK ‘vaccination’ programme is not experimental but has been authorised for temporary use by the UK Government, the same requirements for voluntary and informed consent apply to all medical treatment under UK and international law. It is representative of the way COVID-propagandists like Full Fact and other so-called ‘fact-checkers’ work that, by challenging the applicabilty of the Nuremberg Code to the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, they have ignored all the other legislation and codes of conduct that impose the same conditions of consent.

As I discussed in an earlier article that looked at Compulsory ‘Vaccination’ for COVID-19 and Human Rights Law, the European Court of Human Rights has established that medical treatment without consent constitutes an interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, with case law (Pretty vs. United Kingdom, 2002) stating:

‘The imposition of medical treatment, without the consent of a mentally competent adult patient, would interfere with a person’s physical integrity in a manner capable of engaging the rights protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention.’

Since vaccination is defined as medical treatment under Section 45E of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, compulsory ‘vaccination’ would constitute such interference for people who would otherwise refuse. It is in conformity with this legal requirement that the National Health Service has imposed three requirements for ‘consent to medical treatment’. These are that consent is:

    1. ‘Voluntary — the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family;
    2. ‘Informed — the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead;
    3. ‘Capacity — the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision.’

The violation of these requirements opens anyone doing so, including a clinician, to criminal charges. Reviewing the legal barriers to compulsory medical intervention being considered by the Government last year, Rosalind English, a former lecturer on law and genetics at the University of Cambridge and part of the editorial team of the UK Human Rights Blog run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers’ chambers, wrote:

‘Vaccination without consent would be prohibited by the criminal law on assault, and even grievous bodily harm, if the consequences of the treatment are serious.’

As I documented in Part 1 of this article, the consequences of injection with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ have been very serious and even fatal. One could propose, therefore, that anyone collaborating in overriding these conditions of consent was aiding and abetting in assault and possibly in grievous bodily harm.

By suspending my account, therefore, and removing my post publicising what these risks are based on the MHRA’s own figures, Twitter had in effect over-ruled the second condition of consent to COVID-19 ‘vaccination’: that those giving consent are first given all the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks of ‘vaccination’. Now, obviously, it is not from my Twitter account that the millions of UK citizens being pressured and coerced into being injected should go for their information; but neither is there any justification for censoring my contribution to sharing that information. Far more importantly, in reporting my post to Twitter, Public Health England had collaborated in the blanket censorship by the UK Government, media and medical profession of all the information about these COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, when it should, to the contrary, as the executive arm of the Department of Health and Social Care, be making this information available to each and every UK citizen in full and before they make the decision whether or not to be injected. It is not the job, the responsibility or the legal right of PHE to make that decision for us, and no unfounded claims about spreading information ‘harmful’ to the effectiveness of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme or dismissive allusions to ‘conspiracy theories’ should allow these public bodies to assume that right, in violation of the requirements of voluntary, informed and capable consent under UK law and NHS practice.

These accusations have been clearly and publicly stated in a letter dated 2 July, 2021, addressed to Simon Stevens, Chief Executive Officer of the NHS, by Philip Hyland, Principle at employment law solicitors, PJH Law, on behalf of Dr. Sam White. Dr. White is a General Practitioner and member of The International Lyme & Associated Disease Society whose license to practice medicine was suspended by the NHS on 16 June, 2021, for posting a video on his personal social media account in which he argued that:

‘The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated’.

This is an open letter, made available online, and I want to look at some of its accusations, which Dr. White makes not only against the Executive Board of the NHS, his former employer, but also against the UK Government, its Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, senior public office holders within the civil service, and the Executive Board of the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency. The letter starts with the statement that clinicians practicing within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering any vaccine, and not just the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’:

    1. ‘To do no harm.
    2. ‘To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.’

The first obligation derives from a slightly inaccurate Latin translation (‘primum non nocere’) of a text attributed to the Ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, and is one of the principal precepts of bioethics that all students in healthcare are taught in school. The second obligation, however, is not merely a principle but established by the Supreme Court (Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11). As summarised in the letter, the principles of what constitutes free and informed consent are as follows:

    1. ‘That the patient is given sufficient information to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well-being.
    2. ‘“Sufficient information” includes informing the patient of the availability of other treatments.
    3. ‘That the patient is informed of the material risks of both taking and declining the vaccine.’

As the letter also points out, these principles are in line with Article 6 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, according to which:

‘Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.’

Breach of these principles, therefore, constitutes professional gross misconduct at an individual level; while at an organisational level, if the NHS does not produce evidence that every person injected with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ by its staff has been granted prior consent that meets these principles, NHS executives will — at least in principle — be legally liable for its institutional failings, notwithstanding the indemnity from liability conferred by Government changes to The Human Medicines Act.

The rest of the letter is taken up with laying out the failings of the NHS to meet these principles, which it divides into the following three categories:

    1. The inadequacy of the information made available to the public about the material risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalisation, dying or recovering from COVID-19.
    2. The inadequacy of the information made available to the public about the availability of other treatments to combat infection with SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms of COVID-19.
    3. The inadequacy of the information made available to the public about the risks of injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’.

From this catalogue of failings — whose enumeration in this letter runs to more than 20 pages, and which I recommend to everyone as a summary of the duplicity of the medical response to the coronavirus crisis in the UK — these are the main accusations Dr. White makes against the Government, SAGE, MHRA and NHS.

  • Failing to differentiate between positive RT-PCR or Lateral Flow antigen tests and individuals diagnosed by a doctor as either infected with SARS-CoV-2 or ill with COVID-19, as is required by the NHS’s own internal leaflet;
  • Failing to distinguish between those patients admitted to hospital with symptoms of COVID-19, those who have subsequently tested positive and those who caught SARS-CoV-2 in hospital;
  • Failing to differentiate between those who have died from COVID-19 and those who died from another medical condition but who tested positive either within 28 days prior to death or post-mortem;
  • Failing to differentiate between the programme of immunisation presented to the UK public and the UK ‘vaccination’ programme whose clinical trials were exclusively for efficacy of symptom reduction, not for immunity from infection or reduction of transmission;
  • Failing to explain and justify the changes in policy from ‘vaccinating’ the vulnerable, to ‘vaccinating’ a sufficient percentage of the UK population to achieve herd immunity, to mass ‘vaccination’ of the entire population, including children;
  • Failing to make clear to those ‘vaccinated’ by NHS clinicians that the ‘vaccines’ are still undergoing clinical trials, have never been used on humans before as part of a vaccination programme, and that there is, therefore, no data on their long-term effects;
  • Failing to make clear to those ‘vaccinated’ that the clinical trials were not conducted on pregnant women, the elderly or those who had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, for none of whom, therefore, is there any data on the consequences for their health;
  • Failing to make clear to those ‘vaccinated’ that the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not licensed but have only been granted temporary authorisation by the MHRA, which is a lower regulatory threshold;
  • Failing to differentiate between relative risk reduction (the difference between those developing symptoms of COVID-19 with and without a ‘vaccine’) which is 95 per cent in Pfizer, 94 per cent in Moderna and 67 per cent in AstraZeneca, and absolute risk reduction (the difference between those developing symptoms with and without a vaccine among the whole population), which is 0.84 per cent for Pfizer, 1.2 per cent for Moderna and 1.3 per cent for AstraZeneca);
  • Failing to call out and distance itself from celebrities paid to advertise and promote COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ that have not received marketing authorisation from the MHRA, and which is therefore in contravention of The Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
  • Failing to call out and distance itself from unlawful coercion by the Government in making ‘vaccination’, and proof of ‘vaccination’ in the form of ‘vaccine’ passports, a condition of, for example, removing lockdown restrictions, gaining access to certain venues or permitting travel to holiday destinations. This use of coercion, which is endemic in the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, is in contravention of the Council of Europe’s Resolution 2361 on ‘Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations’. Adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 21 January this year, this states that Member states, which include the UK, must:

    ‘7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;

    ‘7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.’

  • Failing to make it clear to the public that the NHS does not endorse the fettering of an individual’s right to either consent to or decline any medical intervention;
  • Failing to publish information about the effectiveness of the human immune system, and how it can be enhanced by vitamin D, in fighting off infection and disease; the superiority of human antibodies and the longevity of T and B cells in providing immunity over the protection afforded by ‘vaccines’, and the availability and success of other treatments, including Ivermectin, Zinc and Budoneside anti-inflammatory inhalers, in treating the symptoms of COVID-19;
  • Failing to inform the public of the risks to the health of those injected with these temporarily-authorised ‘vaccines’, including failing to publish and disseminate the data on adverse drug reactions following injection, which include Bell’s palsy, thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets, Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and unexpected vaginal bleeding, myocarditis and pericarditis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, antibody dependant enhancement and, in certain cases, death;
  • Failing to collate or publish data on deaths within 28 days of injection with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’.

For all of these failings and others, Dr. White argues that the National Health Service has failed to provide the UK public with the information it needs to meet the requirements of informed consent under UK law and NHS best practice, and is, therefore, in breach of its obligations to the UK public. Additionally, by actively censoring this information, the UK Government has turned NHS clinicians into ‘conduits’ for Government policy, and are therefore guilty of ‘politicising health’, which it is his duty as a medical professional to call out. ‘Clinicians’, Dr. White argues, ‘should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.’ Undoubtedly they should; but in the UK biosecurity state in which we now live, for fulfilling his own obligations to the UK public and refusing to administer the UK ‘vaccination’ programme without the voluntary and informed consent of patients capable of granting it, Dr. White continues to be suspended from medical practice by the NHS. The letter from his lawyers concludes:

‘The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly. They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.’

‘By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent. Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?’

2. How to ‘Vaccinate’ UK Children

On 13 June, Jacob Clynick, a 13-year-old boy from the USA with no pre-existing medical conditions, was injected with his second dose of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’. Over the next two days he felt tired and developed a fever, and on the evening of 15 June he had a stomach-ache. Retiring early, Jacob never woke up, having died in his sleep in the early hours of 16 June. The family were told that findings from the preliminary autopsy suggested his heart was enlarged when he died, and that there was fluid around his heart. No cause of death was listed on Jacob’s death certificate. On 23 June, three days before Jacob’s funeral, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices admitted there was a ‘likely association’ between ‘vaccines’ employing the experimental messenger RNA biotechnology and myocarditis and pericarditis. Myocarditis is the inflammation of the heart muscle that can affect heart rhythm and its ability to pump, while pericarditis is the inflammation of the sac around the heart, and both have been more prevalent in boys and young men following injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the US equivalent of the MHRA, as of 27 August there have been 586 reports of 12-15-year-old children hospitalised in the US, including 9 who have died, following injection with a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. Two weeks ago, on 8 September, a US study, ‘SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17’, reported that, between 1 January and 18 June, 2021, boys aged 12-15 with no underlying medical conditions were 3.7-6.1 times more likely to be diagnosed with myocarditis after two doses of mRNA ‘vaccines’ — with 86 per cent requiring hospital care — than they were of ending up in hospital with COVID-19. As of 15 September, the CDC has confirmed 890 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in male adolescents and young adults following injection with mRNA ‘vaccines’.

Back in the UK, as of 8 September, 2021, the MHRA has received 275 reports of  myocarditis and 205 reports of pericarditis following injection with the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ that killed Jacob Clynick. Including injection with the Moderna ‘vaccine’, which employs the same mRNA bio-technology, and the viral vector AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’, there have a total of 433 reports of inflammation of myocarditis and 407 reports of pericarditis. The MHRA comments:

‘There has been a recent increase in reporting of these events in particular with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, with a consistent pattern of cases occurring more frequently in young males and shortly after the second dose of the vaccines.’

In this next section, I want to look at how the Government has extended the UK ‘vaccination’ programme to these children, when they are even less capable of meeting the legal requirements and practical definition of consent to medical treatment under UK law. In the last section I quoted the first standard of the Nuremberg Code, laying out the conditions under which consent can be said to be voluntary and informed; but there are, in addition, two other standards relevant to the UK ‘vaccination’ programme, and in particular to its imminent extension to children between 12 and 15 years old. These are standards 5 and 6, which require that:

    1. ‘No experiment should be conducted where there is an a-priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.
    2. ‘The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.’

I’ll come back to why the UK ‘vaccination’ programme fails to meet both these standards; but in addition to being a signatory of the Nuremberg Code, the UK Government is also beholden to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which it ratified in December 1991. These include the following rights (which I quote from both the full convention and its summary) most relevant to the extension of the UK ‘vaccination’ programme to children:

‘Article 3. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’

‘Article 6. Every child has the right to life. Governments must do all they can to ensure that children survive and develop to their full potential.’

‘Article 17. Ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.’

‘Article 36. Governments must protect children from all other forms of exploitation, for example the exploitation of children for political activities, by the media or for medical research.’

According to the most recently published figures by the Office for National Statistics, between the week ending 13 March, 2020, when the first deaths in the UK were attributed to COVID-19, and 14 September, 2021, 2,019 children between the ages of 1 and 19 died in the UK (I haven’t included the 3,566 deaths of infants under the age of 1, as this would distort the proportions). Of these, the ONS has recorded 46 deaths that ‘involved’ COVID-19 (with an additional 4 deaths under the age of 1 also recorded). According to the criteria by which COVID-19 deaths are recorded, therefore, 18 months into a supposed ‘pandemic’ the disease has been involved in 2.27 per cent of all child deaths in the UK. The real figures, however, are even worse than that, if by worse we mean justifying extending the UK ‘vaccination’ programme to children. According to the most recent NHS records (below), as of 15 September, 2021, only 10 children without a previously-existing health condition have had their deaths attributed to COVID-19 in hospitals in England and Wales since the pandemic began.

In addition to this UK data showing the almost total absence of threat COVID-19 presents to the health and lives of British children, the growing data from the US and other countries in advance of the UK in injecting their children with COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and showing the greatly increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in ‘vaccinated’ children and young adults, added to the tiny absolute risk reduction of developing symptoms of COVID-19 these ‘vaccines’ actually confer, provides strong evidence for concluding that:

  • Contrary to Article 3 of the UN Conventions on the Right of the Child, ‘the best interests of the child’ are not a primary consideration in the UK ‘vaccination’ programme;
  • Contrary to Article 6, the UK Government is not doing all it can do ‘to ensure that children survive and develop to their full potential’;
  • Contrary to Article 17 and 36, the UK Government is not promoting the ‘physical and mental health’ of our children or protecting them from ‘exploitation’ for ‘medical research’;
  • Contrary to Standard 5 of the Nuremberg Code, there is ‘reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur’ following ‘vaccination’;
  • Contrary to Standard 6 of the Nuremberg Code, the ‘degree of risk’ of injury or death outweighs the purported ‘humanitarian importance’ of injecting our children with these experimental and dangerous drugs, about whose long-term consequences we know almost nothing, but whose immediate dangers to the health of those on whom they are being tested are becoming more apparent with each child that falls ill or dies following injection.

In support of this conclusion, on 3 September the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), citing ‘evidence of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis’, released a statement in which they concluded that ‘the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds’. Initially, this appeared to have undermined the Government’s plans to inject UK children under 16 with the Pfizer/BioNTech ‘vaccine’. However, there is another right in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child relevant to the ‘vaccination’ of 12-15-year-old children, and that is Article 12, which states:

‘Article 12. State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.’

Two days later, on 5 September, Nadhim Zahawi, at the time the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment but since promoted to Secretary of State for Education, announced that children under the age of 16 will not be required to gain parental consent before being injected with a ‘vaccine’. According to a document published by the NHS just three weeks earlier, on 13 August, titled ‘COVID-19 vaccination programme: Vaccinating children and young people: frequently asked questions’, children can choose to be injected with the Pfizer/BioNTech ‘vaccine’ if they are ‘Gillick competent’. Established by the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] UKHL7 in order to allow doctors to prescribe contraceptives, treat STDs or perform an abortion on teenagers without the consent of their parents, this definition, according to NHS guidelines on ‘Children and young people: consent to treatment’, means that:

‘Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they’re believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what’s involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.’

Finally, on 13 September, the Chief Medical Officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland published a collective statement announcing that they were overriding the advice of the JCVI and authorising the injection of 3.15 million 12-15-year-old UK children with one dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech experimental mRNA ‘vaccine’. How they justified this medically, when both Pfizer and BioNTech have released their own statement that phase 3 of the clinical trials of its ‘vaccine’ only evaluated the safety and efficacy of a 2-dose schedule separated by 21 days, the CMOs didn’t say. But, contrary to the data showing that schools are not a site of asymptomatic transmission from children to adults, their justification for this decision was that the risk the ‘vaccines’ present to the health of UK children, including their deaths, is outweighed by being able to ‘maintain children and young people in secondary school and minimise further education disruption’. Besides the duplicity of citing the benefits of being able to remove a barrier to attending school that the UK Government, on the advice of the CEOs, is responsible for erecting, and the criminal disregard for the health and even the lives of UK children, this justification violates every condition, requirement, standard and law of voluntary consent I have quoted in this article.

Two days later, on 15 September, the National Health Service sent out a letter to all GP practices, all COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ sites and centres, all directors of public health and children’s services, all NHS trust CEOs and regional directors, and all local authority executives, informing them that, following the acceptance by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of the recommendation of the CEOs to ‘vaccinate’ UK children aged 12-15, providers should liaise with schools to send out ‘consenting leaflets’ to the parents and carers of these children to agree a date for ‘vaccination’, and should ensure that the ‘consent processes follows best practice outlined in the Green Book’. Published in June 2021, chapter 2, titled ‘Consent’, states:

‘For consent to immunisation to be valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question. This will be the person themselves, someone with parental responsibility for an individual under the age of 18 years (16 years in Scotland), someone authorised to do so under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for health and welfare, or someone who has the authority to make treatment decisions as a court appointed deputy.’

For children under 18, however, consent relies on their being Gillick competent:

‘Where someone aged 16 or 17 years consents to vaccination, a parent cannot override that consent. Young people who understand fully what is involved in the proposed procedure (referred to as ‘Gillick competent’) can also give consent, although ideally their parents will be involved. If a Gillick-competent child consents to treatment, a parent cannot override that consent.’

On what constitutes Gillick competence, the Green Book refers to the criteria used by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). These criteria assess:

    • ‘The child’s age, maturity and mental capacity;
    • ‘Their understanding of the issue and what it involves — including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact;
    • ‘Their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision;
    • ‘How well they understand any advice or information they have been given;
    • ‘Their understanding of any alternative options, if available;
    • ‘Their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.’

What neither the Government nor the NHS has explained is how this assessment is to be conducted on 3.15 million children between the age of 12-15 in the single week before commencement of the ‘vaccination’ programme no later than 22 September, the date on which I publish this article. What this will mean in practice is that, over the next month, children who under UK law are too young to make the decision to smoke, drink alcohol, consent to sex, rent or buy age-rated films, get a tattoo or piercing, work full-time, drive a car, change their name, open a bank account, serve on a jury or vote in an election, who have been subjected to 18 months of coronavirus-justified restrictions in school and at home, to campaigns of guilt and blame in the media about them ‘killing granny’, to lies from the Government about the level of threat of COVID-19 to themselves and others, to indoctrination by their teachers into the cultic practices of biosecurity, to peer pressure from their fellow schoolchildren to comply with the New Normal, and with totally inadequate and misleading information about the risks and possible consequences for them of being injected with these experimental ‘vaccines’ for a disease to which they are statistically immune — will nonetheless be classified as Gillick competent to overrule their parents. Presumably, this represents the less than ‘ideal’ circumstances under which their parents cannot override their decision.

Finally, this week the UK Health Security Agency, the newly-formed merger of Public Health England, NHS Track and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity Centre, published the ‘Coronavirus vaccine consent form for children and young people’, which confirmed my fears about the disinformation and lack of information provided to children before ‘vaccination’. I’ll briefly point out here the more glaring inadequacies and inaccuracies in the 2 pages and 18 sentences on whose understanding 12-15-year-old children are to be judged as Gillick competent to make this irreversible decision.

  • ‘Coronavirus is an illness that lots of people are catching at the moment.’ In fact, coronavirus is not an illness (COVID-19) but a virus (SARS-CoV-2) that can, in a small percentage of those infected, develop into symptoms. This isn’t merely a distinction of terminology, but a product of how a positive RT-PCR test continues, against all the scientific evidence, to be equated with disease symptoms. Far from lots of people catching a disease, what is happening in the UK as we move into autumn is lots of RT-PCR tests at a diagnostically meaningless cycle threshold are returning positive results from dead and non-infectious strands of virus from any of the family of coronaviruses, seasonal influenza, the common cold and other respiratory viruses, between which the RT-PCR test cannot distinguish.
  • ‘One way to help you stay safe is to get a coronavirus vaccine. The coronavirus vaccine should stop you getting very poorly if you do catch coronavirus.’ In fact, as I showed in Part 1 of this article, far from COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ reducing the severity of symptoms of coronavirus disease, the data from PHE shows that a higher number and percentage of ‘vaccinated’ people are being admitted to emergency care in UK hospitals than those who haven’t been ‘vaccinated’.
  • ‘There is a small chance that you can still catch coronavirus if you have had the vaccine.’ In fact, far from reducing the chances of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the data from PHE shows that a higher number and percentage of ‘vaccinated’ people are returning a positive RT-PCR test.
  • ‘After your vaccine your arm might be a bit sore for a short time. You might also feel tired or have a headache. This is called having side effects.’ In fact, as of 8 September, the ‘side effects’ reported to the MHRA following injection with the Pfizer/BioNTech ‘vaccine’ include: 10,916 blood disorders (of which 3 have been fatal); 5,339 cardiac disorders (95 fatal); 4,421 ear disorders; 5,340 eye disorders; 30,049 gastrointestinal disorders (16 fatal); 80,874 general disorders (183 fatal); 1,634 disorders of the immune system (2 fatal); 7,545 infections (84 fatal); 4,843 injuries (1 fatal); 1,786 metabolic disorders (1 fatal); 38,603 muscle and tissue disorders; 218 neoplasms (4 fatal); 55,949 disorders of the nervous system (53 fatal); 6,611 psychiatric disorders (1 fatal); 867 renal and urinary disorders (7 fatal); 18,710 reproductive and breast disorders (1 fatal); 13,797 respiratory disorders (49 fatal); 22,425 skin disorders (1 fatal); and 5,148 vascular disorders (13 fatal). This huge and disproportionate number of adverse drug reactions, which itself represents between 10 per cent and 2 per cent of estimated ADRS, is completely inadequately represented by the consent form’s dismissive reference to a sore arm, tiredness or a headache. Above all, it fails to make any mention of the greatly increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in children and young adults following injection with ‘vaccines’ employing the experimental mRNA biotechnology used by Pfizer.
  • ‘You don’t have to do keep following the governments rules if you have been vaccinated but they will help you to stay safe. This includes social distancing, wearing a face covering and washing your hands carefully and often.’ In fact, there is not, and never has been, any medical justification for either social distancing or wearing a face covering, which have been imposed purely in order to create the illusion of a health emergency and encourage compliance with the biosecurity measures they have helped to justify. More importantly, this statement, the final one in the form and the one most designed to influence children, quite clearly contains an extra-medical inducement to be injected, and is therefore in violation of the principles and laws of voluntary consent without coercion or ulterior inducement.

The final part of the form contains a ‘Gillick guidelines checklist’ (above) for the clinician who is injecting the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ into the child. I challenge any clinician to show how a 12-15-year-old child, on the basis of the inaccurate and inadequate information contained in this consent form, let alone in the conditions in which the programme has been implemented, can possibly understand what immunity will be conferred by the ‘vaccine’, what coronavirus is and the threat it presents to them and others, the risk of having and not having the ‘vaccine’, retain information that has not been supplied for them, weigh up the inaccurate, inadequate and misleading information they have been given to making their own decision, and be regarded as free from pressure and coercion to consent. And I remind them that, in the best practice guidelines on consent outlined in the Green Book, it states:

‘It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations. Healthcare professionals (or other non-registered healthcare workers) who do not respect these principles may be liable to legal action and/or action by their professional body.’

So how did we get to this point, where the UK biosecurity state, on the guidance of unelected technocrats in a revolving door between the pharmaceutical companies that fund them and advisory posts to the UK Government that defers to them, is about to subject 3.15 million British children to injection with experimental, temporarily authorised ‘vaccines’ that neither immunise them against SARS-CoV-2 nor stop its transmission, on the justification of protecting them from a disease to which they are statistically immune? How did this criminal, sinister and obscene programme become — if not yet a condition — then already an example of civic virtue in the UK biosecurity state?

3. Virtue and Terror

On 23 July, 2021, the Scottish actor and former bodybuilder, Michael Mitchell, who had appeared in the films Braveheart and Gladiator and won numerous Fitness World Championships, died at the age of 65 while on vacation in south-west Turkey. Police are conducting an investigation, but the press concluded that a heart attack was the probable cause of death. Five months before, on 22 February, Mr. Mitchell had announced on his Twitter account that he had been injected with his first dose of CoronaVac, a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ developed and manufactured by the Chinese pharmaceutical company, Sinovac Biotech Ltd, and whose phase 3 clinical trials are being conducted in, among other countries, Turkey. Mr. Mitchell wrote: ‘Absolutely zero side effects. Looking forward to 2nd one’. This arrived the following month, on 20 March, when he again announced: ‘Zero after effect (as yet). Vaccine certificate issued’. On 2 May, Mr. Mitchell posted a photo of himself smiling, circled by a banner declaring himself to be ‘fully vaccinated’. As if to reassure himself, on 6 May he posted a statement that, of 150 million ‘vaccines’ administered, only ‘0.005% may have resulted in a serious side effect’. Two months later, on 16 July, Mr. Mitchell announced: ‘Well, that’s my third jab today. Proud to be part of this experiment to save lives’. He later confirmed that this ‘booster’ dose was the Pfizer manufactured ‘vaccine’ developed by BioNTech. On 21 July, Mr. Mitchell posted a long statement about his choice to go on wearing a face covering beyond the legal requirements in Turkey. These included contributing to the ‘common good’, wanting to be ‘part of the solution, not the problem’, feeling like ‘an adult contributing to the security in our society and I want to teach others to do the same’, being ‘caring and responsible’, and advocating that ‘if we could all live with the consideration of others in mind, the whole world would be a much better place’.  

Now, none of these reasons are contemptible, and some of them I share, although his fears about security in our society reveals collective anxieties the coronavirus crisis has elevated to a global neurosis. I quote them here, therefore, not to ridicule Michael Mitchell, who two days later was dead, but as an example of the employment of both virtue and terror in the global COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ programme. For Mr. Mitchell, getting ‘vaccinated’ was an act of virtue, which he was keen to advertise and promote, even to the point of describing his taking multiple doses of different ‘vaccines’ as an experiment ‘so we may learn more about a way forward’. However, for those who do not display the same virtues, there is the increasingly realised threat of being ostracised from society, of discrimination, of fines for non-compliance, of enforced isolation and, eventually, of imprisonment. I do not know what killed this extremely fit 65 year-old 2 days after he was injected with a drug by one of the most litigated and corrupt pharmaceutical companies in the world, whose vast profits alone have allowed it to escape prosecution for malpractice and manslaughter; but in this section I want to look at how the UK ‘vaccination’ programme has been pushed on the British public through this combination of the revolutionary principles of virtue and terror.

Following the foundation of the First French Republic, the Reign of Terror (in French ‘la Terreur’), which ran roughly from the establishment of the Revolutionary Tribunal in March 1793 to the death of Maximilien Robespierre the following July, was overseen by the Committee of Public Safety (Comité de salut public). Initially, at least, this might seem like a strange name for a revolutionary organisation whose administrative and executive powers over the armed forces, the judiciary and the legislature empowered it to launch a campaign of persecutions, denunciations, arrests, imprisonments without trial and public executions that killed maybe 27,000 French citizens under the flag of ‘virtue’. But for Robespierre, under whose leadership the Committee of Public Safety became the de facto war-time government of France, the safety of the French Republic depended on the virtue of each and every French citizen, and anyone who failed to display such virtues must be forcibly removed from the body politic. In his famous speech to the National Convention on 5 February 1794, On the Principles of Political Morality, Robespierre clarified the symbiotic relationship between virtue and terror:

‘If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the mainspring of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing but swift, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It is less a principle in itself than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to our nation’s most pressing needs.’

In Part 1 of an article I published last year, The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State?, I sought to situate the programmes and regulations of the UK biosecurity state within the political and juridical history of ‘states of emergency’. My guide in this — as in so much about the revolution we’re witnessing of formerly liberal democracies into biosecurity states — was the writings of the Italian philosopher, Giorgio Agamben, who in his book, State of Exception, traces this history back to the French Revolution. By the time Robespierre made this distinction between the virtue of peacetime government and the terror of revolutionary government, the former National Constituent Assembly had itself distinguished, in the decree of 8 July, 1791, between a state of peace (état de paix), in which civil and military authorities act in their own separate spheres, a state of war (état de guerre), in which civil authority must act in concert with military authority, and a state of siege (état de siège), in which the functions of civil authority in maintaining order and policing passes to the military commander. But this distinction didn’t long survive. Agamben writes:

‘The subsequent history of the state of siege is the history of its gradual emancipation from the wartime situation to which it was originally bound in order to be used as an extraordinary police measure to cope with internal sedition and disorder, thus changing from a real, or military, state of siege to a fictitious, or political one.’

On 26 March, 2020, the day after Parliament voted itself into recess, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, unlawfully exercising powers conferred by Section 45c of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, made the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 into law. Regulation 3, ‘The emergency period and review of need for restrictions’ — although superseded by later regulations — made it clear that, without it being formally declared by the UK Government, the UK was now in a de facto state of emergency. Unlike the emergency powers conferred by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which must be reviewed by Parliament every 30 days, this ‘emergency period’, during which many of our fundamental human rights and civil liberties have been removed indefinitely, can itself be extended indefinitely by the UK Government. Made without a draft having been laid before or approved by both Houses of Parliament, and without evidence of their proportionality or an assessment of their impact, these Regulations initiated an emergency period that will only end at a time specified by the Secretary of State.

It is under this fictitious — which is to say, politically-declared — emergency period that, a year later, the powers conveyed by the Coronavirus Act 2020 were extended for the second time by a vote of 484 MPs to 76 up to September 2021; and, as of writing, 501 coronavirus-justified Statutory Instruments have been made into UK law by decree of the relevant Minister. Most cruci

Read Original Article
See Also ...
December 19, 2022
THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.
November 28, 2022
Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world - even to the point of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them. The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the award winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.
November 14, 2022
This well researched documentary is a must see if you want to understand how governments around the world were deceived into BELIEVING the "science" which underpinned the global COVID response. How could people up to the highest levels of society be deceived?
October 04, 2022
Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of the link between HIV and AIDS. Fact checkers swiftly deemed these claims to be false and the paper was taken down.
September 24, 2022
Cardiologist, Nuclear Cardiologist, Physicist, PhD, MD and JD, Dr. Fleming under oath describes the Spike protein bioweapon timeline and the parties involved in its development.
August 14, 2022
You were told the answer to everyone’s prayers was to get the Covid-19 injection. But now that you have done so, the healthcare system is on the brink of collapse. Waiting times for ambulances are at an all-time high. The number of emergency calls due to people suffering cardiac arrest is at an all-time high. The number of people dying is at an all-time high, with hundreds of thousands of excess deaths occurring around the world every single week.
July 11, 2022
Steve Kirsch talks with Brook Jackson and her top legal leads Warner Mendenhall, Robert Barnes about her False Claims case against Pfizer et al.
July 10, 2022
Brook Jackson is the Pfizer whistleblower. Her attorney, Robert Barnes, says that Brook Jackson exposed the fact that the Pfizer clinical trial was riddled with errors and fraudulent and false certifications to the US government.
July 09, 2022
The physicians said that they were suing Twitter for permanently suspending them for posting truthful information about COVID and also failing to provide them with verified badges.
June 19, 2022
We are pleased to bring your attention to the following featured article because it is a clear, well-written description of the monkeypox fraud delivered in a hard-hitting, no-nonsense style. We’ve added some emphases in red. [...]
June 16, 2022
One of the confidential Pfizer documents reveals that approximately 800 people never completed the phase 1 Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine trial. Click title above to read the full article
June 05, 2022
Instantly view those 3 videos or join the Fully Live Community where you can see various talks and interviews with David, as well as talks with David & Kim! By joining the community you will have access to many more videos!
June 03, 2022
Dr. David Martin lays it all out brilliantly. Inspirational!
June 03, 2022
British Medical Journal  by Kevin Bardosh1,2, Alex de Figueiredo3, Rachel Gur-Arie et al. Abstract Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethi
Notify me of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments