High Court asked to pause Covid jab rollout for kids
A judicial review has been brought by lawyers at Jackson Osborne which applied to Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice for an urgent order to challenge the temporary authorisation of the vaccines for 12 to 15-year-olds which begins as part of a mass school rollout on Wednesday (September 22).
A decision about whether there is an arguable case and, if so, should the rollout be paused until the case can be heard, is expected on Tuesday (September 21).
The challenge, which will present evidence from experts, doctors and scientists, will argue there is no legal, moral or medical justification for children to receive the covid jab. It will also argue the vaccine is novel and comes with associated risks such as potentially deadly heart inflammation myocarditis.
Stephen Jackson, the lawyer who is spearheading the case said:
“This vaccine has been authorised for emergency use but the emergency is long over and for children there has never been an emergency. Healthy children do not benefit from this vaccination as children are not at risk from covid however they are at risk from its serious side effects such as paralysis (guillain barre syndrome) myocarditis and potential long term effects which we cannot yet know about.“
Last week England’s Chief Medical Officers authorised the use of Covid vaccinations to 12 to 15-year-olds after significant political and media pressure to approve it.
This move ran contrary to the government’s vaccine advisors, the Joint Council on Vaccination and Immunisation, which had concluded covid vaccine risks outweigh any potential benefits to healthy children in this age group.
However, Professor Chris Whitty, CMO for England justified the decision on the grounds that there were other benefits such as reducing the disruption to the school term.
Three million healthy 12 to 15-year-olds will tomorrow be offered the first dose as part of in-school vaccination services. A second dose has not been approved due to concerns about the risk of heart damage.
Children will be able to override parental consent raising fears some may be subject to peer or even school pressure to have the jab.
Last week Prof Adam Finn of the JCVI said that in normal times the Covid vaccine would not have been recommended for widespread use in children until the long-term consequences of rare side effects had been fully investigated.
The fallout continued last week amid concerns about the youngest children involved in the programme and parental consent.
Those under the age of 16 are able to get some medical procedures without consent if they are deemed competent to make that decision on their own.
This is checked by the so-called Gillick test, which assesses whether a child under the age of 16 has sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand what is being proposed.
If a child is not competent to give consent for themselves, consent should be sought from a person with parental responsibility.
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi said children will only be able to have a vaccination against their parents’ wishes following a meeting with a clinician.
But Professor Anthony Harnden, deputy chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said he would not feel comfortable with a 12-year-old getting a jab if their parent had not consented.
Asked about a 12-year-old potentially taking up their offer of a jab if their parent had not consented, Prof Harnden told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
“I wouldn’t feel comfortable about that. I think we have to be really careful that we go by the law, and the law clearly states that the child and parent should try to come to an agreed conclusion. But if the child wants to go ahead or doesn’t want to go ahead and the parent feels absolutely the opposite, then the clinician involved in administering the vaccine needs to be absolutely sure that the child is competent to make that decision.“
He added: “There will be a grade of competency from the age of 16 downwards, so 14 to 15-year-olds may be deemed competent to make that decision on their own, (but) it’s less likely that a 12 or 13-year-old will be deemed competent.”
Mr Zahawi told Sky News:
“On the very rare occasion where there is a difference of opinion between the parent and the 12 to 15-year-old, where the parent, for example, doesn’t want to give consent but the 12 to 15-year-old wants to have the vaccine, then the first step is the clinician will bring the parent and the child together to see whether they can reach consent.
If that is not possible, then, if the child is deemed to be competent and this has been around since the ’80s for all vaccination programmes in schools if the child is deemed to be competent, Gillick competence as it is referred to, then the child can have the vaccine. But these are very rare occasions and it is very important to remember that the School Age Immunisation Service is incredibly well equipped to deal with this clinicians are very well versed in delivering vaccinations to 12 to 15-year-olds in schools.“
See more here: www.msn.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Ponder Stibbons
| #
When I read “incredibly well-equipped” in Mr. Zahawi’s statement, my reaction is: “You are right; it is not credible.”
Reply
Artelia
| #
We need to have an update of the Magna Carta and a constitution here in the UK.
Freedom from medical tyranny and control over our children upto age 21 should be enshrined in solid laws.
Reply
Andrew Pilkington
| #
I’m surprised that msn.com refer to Nadhim Zahawi as Vaccines Minister, seeing as at last week’s Cabinet re-shuffle he was given the post of Education Minister, not that that move is suspicious in any way of course.
Furthermore, as we have forewarned fo a long time now, they will be dropping the age to 5+, pretty soon.
Maybe if a Gallows was constructed outside Parliament, they may get the message? As Max Igan suggested in Australia. I have to agree because, no discussion is permitted and it doesn’t matter what advice is given by JCVI, WHO, or Anyone, really. If it doesn’t suit their Trans-human Mass Depopulation Agenda, they just carry on regardless.
Now, why in God’s name aren’t the Military protecting England by Standing against this Medical Tyranny? Heaven knows, the Police aren’t capable of arresting these Psychopaths, so who is actually paid to protect against a Rogue Government, a Government of Occupation and a Propagandised Mainstream Media.
It’s a World War, why are they supporting the Enemies of Humanity? I know, “Brainwashing” and the Order Followers are far from being alone, on that score. Just not that bright, it would seem.
Where are all the so-called “Men”?
“LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE”!
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Gillick competence in this case is somewhat irrelevant. The issue is more with the information the child has and the peer pressure he is under to influence his decision. Even the parent has insufficient information to make the decision in the absence of long term side effects and they may be aware of that and so object. No amount of ” competence” on behalf of the child can cure that problem, Even if he’s a genius and completely mature, he simply does not have the information to make an informed choice.
No matter how mature a child of twelve might be, he will no doubt be subjected to peer pressure. It takes a certain type of person to be able to resist that, and not everyone has that attribute, however mature and capable. Many adults cave in to such pressure don’t forget.
This is another slight of hand, an attempt to confuse opinion by driving the argument down into irrelevant details and blind alleys. Frankly, a shabby attempt to “get their own way at all costs” by government.
Our government simply does not care any more about the health of our children. They have become psychopaths, hell bent on jabbing every arm in the country.
Ask yourself why? Well, that’s another story.
Reply