top of page
Search
Writer's pictureMark Playne
Sep 20, 2023

FLUENZ, SCHOOL CHILDREN'S SAFETY & TEMPLATE LETTERS

From 1st September 2023, all secondary school students in the UK are being offered Fluenz, a nasal spray vaccine for influenza.

Fluenz was formerly known as FluMist, which was found to be barely 3% effective in the 2016-17 flu season.

More worryingly, Fluenz currently has 311,999 adverse events reported on the WHO's official vigiaccess.org site.


This leads to many questions and the need for resources that I have listed below.

(the post is long so click on any question to jump to the relevant section)





WHAT IS FLUENZ?

Fluenz Tetra nasal spray is a vaccine designed to protect against influenza, commonly known as the flu.


Unlike traditional injections, this new style of vaccine is administered through a nasal spray. Fluenz Tetra contains weakened live flu viruses that are designed to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, in the hope of providing immunity against flu symptoms.


WHO MAKES FLUENZ?

AstraZeneca

Just as if we were choosing a new car, it is worth considering the manufacturer's recent reputation.

IS FLUENZ SAFE AND EFFECTIVE?


First of all, what does the manufacturer AstraZeneca say?

¨...Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. In clinical studies with the vaccine, most side effects were mild in nature and short-term...¨


This is the official AZ Fluenz side effect data presented on medicines.org.uk


Very common

(may affect more than 1 in 10 people):

  • runny or stuffy nose

  • reduced appetite

  • weakness

Common

(may affect up to 1 in 10 people):

  • fever

  • muscle aches

  • headache

Uncommon

(may affect up to 1 in 100 people):

  • rash

  • nose bleed

  • allergic reactions

Very rare

(may affect up to 1 in 10,000 people):

  • severe allergic reaction: signs of a severe allergic reaction may include shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue.

They add ¨Tell your doctor straight away or seek urgent medical care if you experience any of the effects above.¨


They also add ¨You can also report side effects directly via the Yellow Card Scheme at www.mhra.gov.uk/yellowcard or search for MHRA Yellow Card in the Google Play or Apple App Store. By reporting side effects you can help provide more information on the safety of this medicine.¨



This leads to three more key questions:

  • How did Astrazenca achieve the above statistics?

  • Are the statistics reliable?

  • How many reports of minor and serious side effects of Fluenz have been reported?


How did AstraZeneca achieve the above statistics?

The company performed safety trials


Are the statistics reliable?

The data from Fluenz studies have produced doubt in many.

Fluenz has been approved based partly on extremely short clinical trials using no placebo.

Serious scientists (and even Wikipedia) consider experiments without placebo and double-blinding as pseudo-science,

  • Trial PMC4796333 followed 385 participants for only 14 days

  • Trial PMC4181477 followed participants for 13 weeks. Amazingly the trial concluded:

¨Recipients of influenza vaccines had about 1.6 times more ILI episodes (Influenza Like Illness) than did unvaccinated children, and although this may be at least partly explained by a healthcare service-seeking bias, further investigations are warranted into whether influenza vaccine increases the risk of non-influenza ILI, as health-care-seeking behaviour did not predict ILI in a regression model...¨


That last paragraph is worth reading several times.

This study suggests that anyone worried about the flu and lets their children take the Fluenz vaccine, will see their children 1.6 times more likely to suffer the very influenza symptoms they were trying to avoid.

If the vaccine reduced the likelihood of flu symptoms by 1.6 times, I think it would be considered successful, so this appears to be having the wrong effect. Admittedly, the trial uses small numbers of participants making all the results not as reliable as we might hope for.


How many reports of minor and serious side effects of Fluenz have been reported?


We all know companies produce shining data to sell everything from broadband, to cars and computers. Who with a mobile phone trusts the manufacturer's claim of battery life? What car achieves the manufacturerś's fuel efficiency claims? And if anyone expects to achieve the broadband speeds advertised, I suggest monitoring them independently!


Let's take a look at the reported adverse events for Fluenz.


REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS


WHO's official vigiaccess.org site currently has 311,999 adverse events reported as of 20th September 2023 for Fluenz.

These include:

  • Facial Paralysis

  • Heart Inflammation

  • Pericarditis

  • Brain damage

  • Meningitis

  • Encephalitis

  • Guillain Barré

  • Streptococcus

This is a screenshot of the Fluenz adverse event data which you can access and check here

DID FLUENZ KILL 19 CHILDREN IN THE UK?

  • In late 2022, Fluenz was rolled out to all UK primary school children.

  • Just 4 weeks later, 19 children had died.

  • The deaths were blamed on Strep A.

  • However, Strep A is listed as one of the side effects of Fluenz.

  • The UK Government refuses to publish how many of these children took the nasal flu spray.


EXCESS MORTALITY IN FLUENZ AREAS


FLUENZ INGREDIENTS

  • Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

  • Arginine hydrochloride (pituitary gland stimulator)

  • Dipotassium phosphate (can cause vomiting and diarrhoea)

  • Gelatin hydrolysate (ground up pigs bones )


These are the active strains in the 2023 concoction.

A/Darwin/9/2021 (H3N2) - like strain (A/Norway/16606/2021, MEDI 355293) / A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09 - like strain (A/Victoria/1/2020, MEDI 340505) / B/Austria/1359417/2021 - like strain (B/Austria/1359417/2021, MEDI 355292) / B/Phuket/3073/2013 - like strain (B/Phuket/3073/2013, MEDI 306444)


Manufactured using

  • Eggs

  • Chicken kidney cells

  • Pork gelatine

This is why the manufacturers say that anyone with an egg, pork or gelatine allergy should notify the vaccine team.


Download the package insert below to read more.


FLUENZ PACKAGE INSERT

Download the Fluenz package insert



WHAT ARE THE SCHOOLS SAYING?

The schools are in a strange position where on one hand they are pushing the vaccine but on the other declining responsibility.


This is an excerpt from a recent school email to parents.


Dear Parent/Carer Please find below and email from the immunisation team. Please note that xxxxxxx school act as a host for the immunisations to take place however any questions you may have relating to consent need to be directed to the immunisation team and contact details can be found below: Dear Parent/Guardian, Your child's flu vaccination is now due. This vaccination is recommended to help protect your child against flu. Flu can be an unpleasant illness and can cause serious complications. Vaccinating your child will also help protect more vulnerable family and friends by preventing the spread of flu. Please complete the consent form using the following link: xxxxxx

Please ensure you complete your child's consent 48 working hours before your school session to ensure your child receives their vaccination. We are visiting your child's school on xxxxxxxxxxxx The vaccination is free and is a quick, simple and painless spray up the nose. Even if your child had the vaccine last year, the type of flu can vary each winter, so it is recommended to have it again this year or they won't be protected. A leaflet explaining the vaccination programme for secondary-aged young people can be accessed below and includes details about the small number of children for whom the nasal vaccine is not appropriate. The nasal spray vaccine contains a very small amount of purified porcine gelatine as an essential ingredient to keep it stable and able to work. For those who may not accept medicines or vaccines that contain porcine gelatine, a flu vaccine injection is available. Since the programme was introduced, most children offered the vaccine in schools have had the immunisation. Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxx



VACCINATION LEAFLET GIVEN TO PARENTS

The title UK Health Security Agency infers gravitas for something once thought of so lightly that any kid with a sniffling nose was sent to school not to miss an important lesson.


This is from their website. Fascinating the way they mention infectious diseases next to germ and nuclear warfare.


The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) is responsible for protecting every member of every community from the impact of infectious diseases, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents and other health threats.

We provide intellectual, scientific and operational leadership at national and local level, as well as on the global stage, to make the nation’s health secure.

UKHSA is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.


Is this a moment to remember how pre-2020 we teased Skivvers for having what we called man-flu? ;)

Back to the leaflet being distributed to parents...


DOWNLOAD THE LEAFLET HERE

Here are screenshots of the school leaflet











The leaflet is glossy and persuasive.


Let me provide some alternative reasons to the last page.


1. Protect yourself.

The vaccine will help protect you against flu and serious complications such as bronchitis and pneumonia


- Research shows the vaccine makes the subjects 1.6X more likely to suffer flu symptoms The leaflet is glossy and persuasive.

- where is the evidence suggesting the vaccine protects against complications such as bronchitis and pneumonia?


2. Protect your family and friends.

Having the vaccine will help protect more vulnerable friends and family


- This is ignoring the established risk of shedding meaning the unvaccinated, and vulnerable are at risk from the live attenuated virus


3. No injection needed.

The nasal spray is painless and easy to have


- True enough


4. It’s better than having flu.

The nasal spray helps protect against flu, has been given to millions worldwide and has an excellent safety record


- The safety record can be seen here by looking at reported adverse reactions. Of course, this needs to be weighed against the total number of subjects, but we must also take into consideration the CDC and other official bodies admit only 1-10% of adverse reactions get reported. This means the injury data must be multiplied considerably by a factor of 1-100 to get a true idea of the risks


5. Avoid lost opportunities.

If you get flu, you may be unwell for several days and not be able to do the things you enjoy


- If you get the nasal spray studies indicate you are 1.6X more likely to get flu symptoms.

- If you are unvaccinated and in school for the days after the flu nasal mist has been used you are likely to suffer from shedding and to experience flu symptoms.




WHAT IS SHEDDING?

Shedding is a widely accepted and understood side effect of using live virus in vaccines.

When the vaccinated cough, sneeze, or detox via their breath or skin, they will pass the virus on.


It means that unvaccinated children, parents, and grandparents catch the live weakened virus from those who have been vaccinated.

i.e. the vaccinated spread the virus to the unvaccinated.


Many studies have set out to measure shedding

  • Study PMC6695509 seen on pubmed here, found that up to 67 % of vaccinated participants were shedding vaccine particles.




HOW LONG SHOULD I KEEP MY CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL?

The standard has always been to take the children out of school on vaccination days and keep them out for at least 3 days.

Many now believe this should be 2 weeks.

Of course, this presents the issue of childcare for many.


I asked a well-informed mother what she had done in the past.

This was her reply.


¨...It all depends on risks to child or other family members.
When my friend´s father in law was undergoing chemo she pulled her two children out for a week.
I’ve removed xxxxxxxx for a week, 5 days, 3 days and last year just the vaccination day.
xxxxxxxx has never experienced shedding symptoms with the exception of last year, so in my book is deffo do 3 days off....¨

However, if we take a closer look at the above leaflet focusing on page 6, there is a more revealing clue.


It indeed looks like 2 weeks is the official 'unadmitted' expected window of shedding.


I imagine the risk from shedding moves in an exponential decline as in this graph.

So after three days, the risk will be significantly lower, and near negligible at 2 weeks.



WHAT CAN I DO?


  • Carry out your own research

  • Double-check the above data and information understanding some of it might be hard to find.

  • Be aware sites like Wikipedia and YouTube and search engines like Google are controlled by industry and agendas

  • As a starting point NEVER let your child (or anyone) have a vaccination when ill or off-colour. I have lost count of the parents who have told me their jab-injured child was not well on the day of the procedure.

  • If in doubt, wait. A child can always have the vaccination later if you so decide. Safer to Wait have an excellent website based on the concept

  • Remember to be kind to headmasters and teachers who are doing their best, but are limited by their knowledge.

  • Decline consent for your child to have the vaccine.

  • Use a template letter as seen below.

  • Take them out of school for the shedding period, requesting home-schooling lessons so they don´t fall behind.

  • Request that these days are not counted as absence,

  • Present uninformed teachers with key information.

  • Remind them attempting to use Gillick's competency could result in prosecution.

  • Inform other parents of the risks at your child's school so they can make informed choices.

We all want simple conflict-free lives.

Of course, it needs courage to stand against the flow of the majority.

My father often reminded me when in similar situations, such as being slower to cross a busy road than my friends...

¨It is better to appear a fool for a minute, than be one for a lifetime.¨


TEMPLATE LETTER TO SCHOOLS


This letter template has been provided by Lawyers


Date/Address


Dear Sirs,


[Your child's name] year [xx]


The flu nasal vaccine is to be given to all school children this September.

Accordingly, this letter is to formally and unequivocally withdraw my consent for you to vaccinate [your child's name].


If Gillick competence applies include the next paragraph. If it does not, remove the next paragraph. In all cases remove this paragraph that is in red.


My daughter/son is at the age where s/he could be considered Gillick competent. Given this I have discussed the risks and benefits of the nasal flu vaccine with her/him and s/he declines informed consent to receive the same. Consequently my daughter/son has signed this letter to also refuse the vaccine.


Recent research suggests that the flu vaccine "may not work as well as previously thought", (1), and further the vaccine has been shown to cause a wide array of negative and serious health effects, including Guillain-Barré syndrome, narcolepsy and Oculo-respiratory syndrome. (2), (3) (4). Given this, I am concerned that the risks from the vaccine outweigh the risk to [your child's name], a healthy child, from the flu itself.


Please include the paragraphs below only if you intend to take your child out of school for the shedding period and in all cases remove this paragraph that is in red.

Given the shedding from the vaccine, a further well-documented risk (5), this letter is also to inform you that to protect [your child's name], s/he will not be in attendance at school on vaccination days and for 2 weeks following the last day that the school administers the vaccine, to ensure that her/his health is not adversely affected by dissemination of particles from a vaccinated child. Given this, I would be grateful if you could supply 2 weeks of class work for [your child's name] to carry out at home, and I will ensure that this is completed.


Given that the school has decided to administer the nasal vaccine in a non-clinical setting en masse, and my grave concerns as to the health of [your child's name] from shedding, you will appreciate that I do not expect any penalty for keeping [your child's name] away from school for the two week shedding period, and I reserve my right to take independent legal advice about the same should I receive notification of a penalty.


Please place a copy of this letter in my child's school record.


Yours sincerely,


Your name


Child´s signature here


Child´s name here



DOWNLOAD LETTER TEMPLATE HERE

TEMPLATE LETTER 2 BY MIRI


Dear [name of headteacher], I am a supporter of the campaigning group, Informed Consent Matters, an initiative that promotes the vital legal and ethical importance of informed consent in medicine. I understand that you, along with every other secondary school in the country, will be offering the nasal flu spray to all of your pupils this coming September. I harbour grave concerns about this initiative, given the relative risk to healthy children from acquiring the flu is very low, whereas the flu nasal spray can potentially cause a wide array of negative health effects, some of them serious. I would therefore like to request a copy of the school's risk assessment regarding the mass administering of a risky medical product in a non-clinical environment, with particular emphasis on the controls put in place should a child have an adverse reaction. Studies have shown the nasal flu spray can cause a child to develop severe, life-threatening respiratory issues that require immediate ICU admission, amongst other potentially serious adverse effects. As you are aware, schools are not clinical environments, nor are they able to maintain the professional standards of such environments, and that one would expect when administering invasive, risky medical products to children. In the first instance, if a child needs urgent, professional assistance in the face of a medical emergency (such as a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine), schools are not equipped to provide this. Healthcare settings are, which is why, traditionally, children have always received their vaccinations in healthcare settings, rather than school gyms. In addition, children are also highly liable to become distressed at the prospect of vaccination, and the insertion of a foreign object into their nasal cavity, which is a particularly invasive procedure that could even prove painful if administered without sufficient care (unfortunately it is well documented that such care is often not taken when things are being inserted into the nose).. Therefore, children as young as 11 who are to be subject to such potentially distressing processes should be supported by trusted family members, not strangers who are "batch processing" hundreds of other children. This is a potentially highly traumatic experience for a child, especially one who may be dealing with ASD or a similar condition, as many children are. All these factors - both the physical and emotional risk to children of applying the flu nasal spray in school - should be taken into account in your risk assessment. A further risk which has been well and extensively documented by studies is the phenomenon of vaccine "shedding", where the flu nasal spray disseminates its particles from the vaccinated child, to others around them who have not been vaccinated. This phenomenon means parents cannot genuinely give "informed consent" to vaccination in school, because their child may inhale some of the vaccine from shedding classmates, even if that child themselves has not received the vaccination. This is another reason why vaccines should not be given in schools, but (for families who want them) in controlled clinical settings, where the risk of shedding can be minimised. Giving a shedding vaccine in schools, environments which are known to be "superspreader" environments for communicable infections like headlice, inevitably creates a high-risk situation where communicable aspects of the vaccination could be spread to many others, causing illness in those people. The flu vaccine is known to cause a wide range of infections and health conditions, including strep A (which swept through schools last year) and the flu itself, with a 2021 study showing 81% of flu cases in children were caused by the flu nasal spray. As such, I am concerned that administering this vaccine to an additional 3 million children, as the secondary school flu vaccination programme aims to do, has the potential to drive a wave of illness in children that could be declared as another "pandemic", and lead to more of the ruinous "lockdown" policies that so disrupted children's education and lives in 2020 and 2021. I am sure that you are as keen as I am to avoid that fate, so please consider very carefully whether you wish to administer the flu vaccine in your school (rather than letting families arrange for their children to receive this vaccine in the appropriate medical setting should they wish), and please also, as I have requested, furnish me with a copy of your full risk assessment should you decide to proceed with administering the flu vaccine in your school. As a member of the community, I am concerned for both the children at your school who may receive this vaccine, and the wider public (including vulnerable groups), who may be adversely affected by this vaccine and its ability to "shed" and cause illness - an illness that may potentially be declared by government officials as another "pandemic" (please note that the then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared in 2022 that if a wave of illness that specifically affected children ever emerged, another lockdown would likely be introduced). It is incumbent on you, as a headteacher with safeguarding and pastoral responsibilities to the children in your care, to ensure their optimal safety whilst they are at your school, and not to expose them to avoidable and unnecessary risks. It is the contention of myself and the Informed Consent Matters campaigning group that the flu nasal spray being administered in schools is an avoidable and unnecessary risk. If you cannot prove otherwise with a comprehensive risk assessment that takes into account all the evidence (not merely "cherry-picked" evidence that may confirm existing bias), then we will conclude that you are derelict in your obligations to optimally safeguard children, and we will therefore respond to this situation accordingly. Thank you for your time. Yours sincerely, [Name]



WARNING - WHAT IS GILLICK COMPETENCY?

As a parent, you have made up your mind.

Although responsible for all your children until the age of 16, there is one loophole the industry/NHS/schools use.

Even though your child can not purchase alcohol, tobacco, have a tattoo, engage in sexual activity, buy a gun or drive a car, they can potentially override your wishes on vaccination by citing Gillick Competency.


What is Gillick Competency?

Gillick Competency, is a legal concept established in the United Kingdom through the Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority case in 1985, pertains to the ability of a child under the age of 16 to provide informed consent for their own medical treatment or decisions. To be considered Gillick competent, a minor must demonstrate a level of maturity and understanding that enables them to make informed choices about their healthcare without parental consent.


The irony of this ridiculousness is that a child is not offered the Gillick Competency loophole to refuse a jab - only to accept one.

It's a one-way rule that would make a perfect narcissistic gaslighting demon within any work of fiction, yet we accept this from our Health Security Agency via the NHS and our schools?

Yes, it's bonkers.


Fear not.

A friend asked Philip Ridley of Weston A Price U.K. chapter to create a document with regards to the school´s vaccination program, Gillick competence and injury litigation.

Philip has presented a simple argument that debunks this supposed loophole denying basic parental rights to protect a child,


In summary: Gillick's Competency cannot be applied to teenagers as they cannot litigate for themselves as minors, should injury ensue.


LEGAL STATEMENT ON THE VALIDITY OF ´GILLICK COMPETENCY´


USE THIS TO TACKLE THE RISK OF SCHOOLS OR VACCINATION TEAM ATTEMPTING TO BYPASS PARENT'S WISHES BY CITING ´GILLICK COMPETENCY´


Gillick Competency


Parents are made by authorities to believe that Gillick

Competency from Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] UKHL

7 is an end entirely to their involvement in their child's medical

treatments, but this is simply not true and parents have been

misled.


What Gillick's case states, citing Blackstone, is that parental

responsibility flows from parental duties and that these duties

and therefore rights fall away as a child develops competency of

their own. Firstly, the case isn't clear that 12 is a cut off

date, the date of competency will vary from child to child and

children with mental capacity issues may never obtain capacity.

Importantly, the case only refers to a child developing competency

for bodily autonomy but this is not the only factor in a parent's

involvement. The way in which autonomy is ultimately protected is

through prosecution and litigation, being able to prosecute or sue

those who violate bodily autonomy. What Gillick fails to explain

is that children only develop competency to prosecute or sue

another person upon reaching the age of 18, because prior to that

age they are prohibited by law from entering into contracts,

hiring a Solicitor or committing to proceedings that could result

in them losing and being shouldered with a debt.


Therefore, Parents have the parental duty and therefore

responsibility to be a litigant friend for their child to the age

of 18. This means that it must be unlawful to prevent the parent

of a child under the age of 18 from observing the consent process,

perhaps with a solicitor present, to secure that their child's

consent is lawful and informed and so that they may take legal

action on behalf of the child if necessary. That process simply

cannot occur via mass vaccination at school and must happen in the

privacy of a GP's surgery and so a parent seeking to exercise this

right should act to prevent vaccination in school and demand that

the consent process occur with their family doctor.


The first duty of a child's litigant friend is to assess whether

consent is lawful. If it is not, the treatment is a violation of

bodily autonomy in the form of trespass to the person and the

crimes and torts of assault and battery may have occurred.

For assault to be committed, a defendant must have performed a

positive act that made the claimant think that someone is about to

apply force directly and voluntarily to their body without lawful

consent.

For battery to be committed, a defendant must have directly and

voluntarily applied force to the claimant’s body without lawful

consent.

For the crimes of assault and battery, the statute of limitation

is 6 months but additional time is provided after a victim has

made a statement or a video recorded interview but there are

circumstances where the offence can be indictable, including if

grievous bodily harm occurs or if the battery results in

manslaughter or murder. An offence can be reported to the Police

or a private prosecution can be had but prosecutions are expensive

and the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, so it is

generally advisable to focus on suing for the tort violations at

least first if there is not overwhelming evidence.


Assault and battery are also torts, which are proven on balance

of probability and battery resulting in physical or psychological

injury must be sued within three years. However, the 3 year

limitation for a child does not commence until they are 18 and it

does not start for a person with mental disability until or if

that disability ceases, see the Limitation Act 1980.


Consent is not lawful if a person lacks capacity either due to

not obtaining Gillick competency or as a result of having a mental

disability. There could be a whole host of reasons why a child of

12 or older may not have obtained capacity yet and capacity will

vary depending on the complexity and implications of the proposed

treatment. Consent is also not lawful if it has been coerced,

"Duress, whatever form it takes, is a coercion of the will so as

to vitiate consent." Hirani v Hirani [1982] EWCA Civ 1. For

example, it could be argued that peer pressure in a school

environment renders some children to be under duress.

Battery may also occur if the patient has not been advised in

broad terms of the nature of the procedure to be performed which

was arguably the case for many who took Covid vaccines who were

not advised that the treatments were intended to be gene therapies

and it is doubtful that a 12yr old would understand that sort of

treatment. However, so long as that basic requirement is

satisfied, an allegation that the risks inherent in a medical

procedure have not been disclosed to the patient can only found an

action in negligence and not a crime Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA

58.


The law around clinical negligence regarding the duty of

disclosure is set out in Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11

from Paragraph 87.

87. The correct position, in relation to the risks of injury

involved in treatment, can now be seen to be substantially that

adopted in Sidaway by Lord Scarman, and by Lord Woolf MR in

Pearce, subject to the refinement made by the High Court of

Australia in Rogers v Whitaker, which we have discussed at paras

77-73. 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.


88. The doctor is however entitled to withhold from the patient

information as to a risk if he reasonably considers that its

disclosure would be seriously detrimental to the patient’s health.

The doctor is also excused from conferring with the patient in

circumstances of necessity, as for example where the patient

requires treatment urgently but is unconscious or otherwise unable

to make a decision. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this

case to consider in detail the scope of those exceptions.


This case relates to adults of sound mind, and so prior to

Gillick competency, the law is the same, but the consent of the

Parent must be obtained and the test of materiality relates to a

reasonable person in the Parent's position. Once Gillick

competency is reached, the Parent is advocating for the child's

position rather than advocating for their own views as parents.

A parent can sue after the event for damages, but they can also

sue for an injunction and parents combine their efforts in group

litigation orders. Whilst going to court is expensive, parents can

also launch a formal complaint or pre-action proceedings if they

have time, which cost nothing but which may elicit a response from

the school's or doctor's insurers. It would likely be a test case,

but there is a case that parents could sue for the tort of

malfeasance if they are prevented from exercising their parental

responsibility and right to be their child's litigant friend.


If more parents were aware of this, it could be the end of mass

vaccinations in schools or at least schools may be required to

respect those parents who wish to proceed with the consent process

in the privacy of their GP's surgery rather than the peer

pressure, rush and parental alienation that occur when

vaccinations take place in school.


Philip Ridley, MSc, PGDip

Honorary Board Member, Weston A. Price Foundation




DOWNLOAD FULL STATEMENT





As always, if you spot a typo, see a mistake, or think I should add or omit something please write to me at: mark-notb@protonmail.com


Share widely

https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/fluenz-school-children-s-safety-template-letters



PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!



7 Comments