The term ‘anti-vaxxer’ is a baseless slur. Much like the vaunted term ‘conspiracy theorist’, it is intended to discredit those who dare to question the official narrative, which in this case is the safety and efficacy of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapy injections.
For those tragically injured by the shots who are now seeking accountability for the decisions taken by the UK Government—through its agencies, the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI)—to approve and recommend these products, the irony is that their injuries are a direct consequence of their not being ‘anti-vaxxers’.
These innocent people did what was asked of them. They rolled up their sleeves in the belief that the shot would protect them and, perhaps more importantly, would protect others. Had they had the foresight and knowledge to question both the competence of the regulators and the sincerity of the pharmaceutical companies responsible for these products, they would not currently be suffering from one of any number of medical health issues that include, but are not limited to, death, myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and a variety of neurological disorders.
These people were reassured on TV screens, advertising billboards and newspaper pages with the mantra of ‘safe and effective’—and yet, by every measurable indicator we have available to us, it is evident that these shots are neither safe nor effective.
The truth is—and I will happily stand by this somewhat dramatic claim—that not one person in the UK gave their informed consent to be injected with these experimental drugs. This includes those who couldn’t wait for the opportunity to have the needle pierce their skin and who have been singing from the ‘Vaccines Will Save Us’ hymn sheet since all this madness began in 2020. Even the vaccine zealots could not have provided informed consent, for the simple reason that they were not adequately informed about the potential side effects of the treatment and what the alternatives to these shots were.
Failure to gain informed consent in English law means a medical procedure is unlawful. Furthermore, should it be found that a person who has not been provided the requisite level of consent is harmed in any way then the doctor, GP or local NHS Trust (or in this instance, due to the indemnification it provided, the Government) is liable for the injuries sustained. The perpetrators are not criminally liable but are civilly liable in tort law for harms caused, and must pay damages.
For those not familiar with the legal concept of ‘informed consent’, let me elucidate you. In the English-speaking world, the law is established definitively not by way of statute but through the precedence of case law (stare decisis—abiding by earlier rulings, an obligation on courts which the Continental legal system does not acknowledge). The most important recent case in relation to informed consent is Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, a Scottish case which reached the UK Supreme Court in 2015, and which set very clear rules for how the principle should be applied.
The case itself concerned a woman, Montgomery, who gave birth to an infant that due to shoulder dystocia (when the shoulder of the baby gets stuck during a vaginal delivery) suffered brain injuries. The case rested on the failure of the doctor to explain the possible risk of shoulder dystocia to Ms Montgomery given her age, size and size of the baby. Montgomery held that had she been informed of the risk, she would have elected for a birth by Caesarean section, and that the eventual tragic events that resulted in her infant’s brain injuries would have been avoided.
The most important sentences from the judgment are of such significance that I shall quote them in full (with highlighting added):
An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken. The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.
Let’s break this down in relation to the Covid-19 injections, because there is quite a lot to unpack.
Alternative Forms of Treatment
Each person is entitled to decide which of the available forms of treatment to undergo. Notice the language here: available forms of treatment. Have you ever wondered why the Government and health agencies didn’t focus on early treatments for Covid-19 and tried to impress on everyone that the only solution to the pandemic was a vaccine—or why those doctors that published alternative treatment protocols, such as Peter McCullough and Vladimir Zelenko, or published research into the effectiveness of Ivermectin, such as Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory, were censored and de-platformed?
From a regulatory perspective, Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for these products—that being the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nomenclature equivalent to the European Medicines Authority's conditional marketing authorisation—could not have been approved if there were existing drugs or treatments for Covid-19 available. From a legal standpoint, if there were alternative treatments available for Covid-19, then the doctors and health agencies would have had a legal duty to disclose these to the patient prior to administration of the shot. The combination of these two factors provides adequate motivation for the pharmaceutical industry to have ensured that no alternative treatments were licensed or approved.
It should come as no surprise that none of the regulatory agencies across the world licensed or approved any alternative treatments despite the prevalence of peer reviewed literature confirming the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, two cheap and extremely safe generic drugs. The stench of ‘regulatory capture’ is all too prevalent here, and it might interest readers to know that the UK's medicines regulator, the MHRA—while claiming to be an independent body—receives over 80% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. With such a sizeable conflict of interest in evidence, the idiom of ‘the foxes guarding the henhouse’ comes to mind.
The law is very clear on bodily integrity. Any procedure that interferes with the bodily integrity of the individual requires consent from the patient, and failure to obtain this consent results in the procedure being unlawful. What the law is effectively highlighting here is that an individual’s body is sovereign and that nobody—not the doctors nor the state—has any right to interfere with that body without the requisite level of consent. The Montgomery judgment goes on to point out that this consent can only be legally provided if the doctor has made the patient aware of all the material risks involved in the treatment and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments (discussed above).
This includes the obligation to provide an explanation of the risk of not having any treatment at all. Given that, for many age-groups, the serious risk—that of hospitalisation or death—from Covid-19 is virtually zero (in children) or negligible (in adults under 60), we have to question why it was considered necessary to interfere with the bodily integrity of the entire population at all. Professor John Ioannidis, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists, has calculated the median Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for Covid-19 to be 0.24%.
Whatever one’s opinion, the law holds that each individual has the right to know what the material risks are for the specific treatment, any alternative treatments, and no treatment at all. It is only with all of this information that they can conceivably make an informed decision on whether they wish to undergo the proposed treatment.
Consideration of Risk
The final element in the Montgomery judgment concerns the test applied to determine whether a patient will consider a risk worthy of consideration (in other words, whether the patient would want to be informed about a risk or not). This is not to be determined by the doctor or healthcare professional on the patient's behalf, rather; it must be assessed according to whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk.
In applying this test to the Covid-19 injections, it matters not whether the MHRA, the JCVI, Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance, or the doctor or medical professional administering the shot is of the opinion that the risk of a serious adverse event from the Covid-19 injection is extremely rare (and therefore not necessary to discuss with each prospective recipient).
What matters is whether the individual would consider those risks to be relevant or significant. Given that the Appendix from Pfizer’s own Post Marketing Safety Report has a list of Adverse Events of Special Interest that spans nine closely-typed pages, I think it is reasonable to assume that the average person would wish to be informed that these injections do, in fact, carry some very serious health risks.
A defence of plausible deniability—to plead that the risks were unknown to the health agencies or doctors at the time of administration and that they could not have provided the requisite information to the patient—simply will not hold up under scrutiny. For a start, any such defence will be countered with the accusation of ‘wilful blindness’. It is, after all, the health agencies’ and medical practitioners’ responsibility to know what the risks of a treatment are, and for them to argue that they were unaware of such risks given the abundance of information available to them is fundamentally negligent in and of itself. Put another way, it is a requirement of their job to obtain and seek out such information, and as such, they cannot claim that they were unaware of the potential health risks and adverse reactions.
To outline how prevalent and accessible information concerning the serious adverse events these injections can cause is, we only need to turn to two sources. The first is the safety vigilance systems run by the relevant agencies around the world: the three most prominent are the Yellow Card system in the UK, VAERS in the USA, and EudraVigilance in the EU and adjoining countries. Each of these safety monitory systems is showing record numbers of recorded adverse events for the Covid-19 injections: numbers that exceed the combined total number of adverse events for all the vaccines administered in the preceding forty years. This is the MHRA’s own data. They are responsible for it. For them to try and argue that they weren’t aware of the potential side effects would be perverse in the extreme.
The second source is each pharmaceutical company’s own trial data and post-marketing data for their gene therapy product. Pfizer’s data spans over 450,000 pages in total and is being slowly released to the public after a judicial order in the United States. It is noteworthy that the FDA sought to have the data withheld from public release for 75 years, a decision that beggars belief given that it is the FDA’s responsibility to inform and protect the public in relation to pharmaceutical products. If this data was available to the FDA, as we know it was, then it is safe to assume that the MHRA in the UK would also have access, and if they didn’t, then they ought to have. Again, wilful blindness is not an excuse.
Compensation for Injuries
The above paragraphs have outlined the law in respect of the responsibilities of the doctor or medical professional to inform the patient of risks and available treatments prior to administering the Covid-19 injection. What about the law in relation to the award of damages (compensation) for injuries suffered where informed consent has not been lawfully obtained? In such an instance, the doctor or practitioner is liable and must compensate the patient for all harms caused.
The award for damages will be determined based on the need to return the injured person to the state that they were in prior to the injury or injuries. Of course, for many people this is impossible to achieve, but all private medical expenses to support and assist the injured person live a ‘normal’ life will be covered by the award, and this will be supplemented by a sum calculated for any loss of earnings for the rest of the person’s life.
Currently, most British individuals seriously injured from conventional vaccines will be encouraged (by the State) to make a claim using the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (VDPS). This scheme was introduced in 1979 under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and is woefully inadequate for a whole host of reasons.
To make a successful claim using the VDPS requires individuals to be disabled from a vaccine by 60% or more. This is grossly unfair—what about individuals that suffer a 58% disability, or 45%, however quantified and at whatever moment in time? Are they not entitled to anything? The short answer is ‘No’. To make matters worse, the amount available to a successful claimant is fixed at £120,000—which, for a lifelong disability or health condition, especially for a young person with their entire life ahead of them, is wholly insufficient.
In contrast, in the domain of tort law, a clinical negligence (medical negligence) claim brought against an NHS Trust or GP in which the claimant can prove that—
- they were not informed of the risks and that, had they been informed, then they would not have taken the medical procedure; and
- that it was the medical procedure that caused their injury
—renders the defendant liable for damages to a sum that can run into the millions.
Yes, the cost of bringing a claim of this type in a civil court is high, but the potential award of damages is significantly better than an award through the VDPS—life-changingly so—and the law surrounding informed consent is well established to support them in their claim.
Many will recall the Infected Blood scandal (covered by UK Column News on 4 January 2023 from 20:30 onwards) in which the NHS purchased infected blood from US companies who had in turn sourced the blood from American prisoners who had hepatitis. The protracted inquiry into the Infected Blood scandal is ongoing—but, given the number of people that have been injected with these Covid-19 shots, I think it is safe to say that we are standing on the edge of the largest clinical negligence scandal in history: one that is, in my view, going to dwarf the Infected Blood malpractice by a sizeable order of magnitude.
It is important, in my opinion, that those injured from Covid-19 vaccines do not submit a claim through the VDPS. This scheme is run by the executive (not the judiciary), has an extremely low success rate for applicants, and the odds are stacked very much in favour of the state. It is also a ‘no-fault’ programme, which means the Government refuses to accept any genuine liability for the injury. To add insult to injury, the Scheme’s burden of proof to establish disability is inordinately high and not open to proper scrutiny.
In the USA and Canada, there are class-action lawsuits in which multiple claimants group together to bring a claim. In the UK, we have Group Litigation Orders. If enough injured persons group together and instruct legal representation, there is good reason to believe that a clinical negligence claim against the British state can and will succeed.
I propose crowdfunding—using platforms selected with care to minimise the risk of having funds unaccountably confiscated before payout—as a credible means of financing such a claim. The costs would no doubt run into the millions (hence why I advocate crowdfunding), but all of these legal fees would be recouped from the state (admittedly, that is ultimately from us, the taxpayers) upon a successful outcome—and, more importantly, the injured persons would receive proper compensation for their injuries.
Personally, I cannot envisage how any British court reviewing a claim brought by an injured party in relation to these shots could agree with the assertion that the claimant gave their informed consent. If I am correct, all that will be required for such claimants to win their case is to prove, on the balance of probabilities (the lower legal burden of proof applicable in civil law as opposed to criminal law), that their injury was the result of the shot(s).
This will vary on a case-by-case basis and will require detailed medical evaluation. The closer in proximity to the injection that the injury appeared, the stronger their case will be, and we see the MHRA already arguing that temporal coincidence alone is not grounds for blaming an injection for symptoms. Nevertheless, given the volume of data now available on how these injections are causing clotting, strokes, myocarditis and other medical conditions, I think many injured parties will have a very strong case. Those with pre-existing conditions might struggle, for obvious reasons; but anyone with a reasonable and clear medical history that can show a sudden and unexpected change in health within relative proximity to the injection will be in a strong position to win their claim.
It is noteworthy that the father of eminent cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra died from a heart attack six months after his second injection. Dr Malhotra requested an autopsy, which duly backed up his suspicion that his father’s death had been the result of the Covid-19 injection, and this is supported by the fact that his medical records show that Mr Malhotra senior had a perfectly healthy heart prior to the injections.
Due legal process is slow going. Anyone who works in the legal profession will tell you this. But the truth always comes out in the end, and those injured need to play the long game. The data and evidence is on their side. These injections cause harm. This is irrefutable now.
A survey conducted by Rasmussen in the USA, and backed up by data from V-Safe that was collated by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), indicates that as many as 7% of those receiving a Covid-19 injection required medical attention. This is an alarmingly high figure, and one that the governments and regulatory agencies ought to be taking heed of. Instead, they plough on with the roll-out of bivalent boosters.
Perhaps some serious and well-organised litigation is the only thing that will halt them in their tracks? It is important that those already injured take a stand, seek legal advice, and initiate claims to bring an end to this dangerous gene technology product—and, in so doing, discharge their own moral duty to prevent future harms to their fellow citizens.