Despite the significant concerns about the Court’s decision not to conduct any review of the government decision to roll out experimental mRNA gene therapy treatments to children (both 5 to 11s and the over 12s), the claimants in each of the cases will not be appealing the Court decisions.

They have had to take account of many factors: the costs of pursuing an appeal, the potential worsening of outcome if the appeal is lost and the Court of Appeal puts its weight behind and endorses the practical approach of the High Court seen to date, and the opportunity cost of spending further time and financial resources on these cases.  The risk/benefit must be weighed and the decision made is that, for the time being at least, this route should not be pursued further.

Some have questioned whether the challenges were ever worth bringing, believing rejection was inevitable.  They might have been right about the rejection, but the challenges were certainly worth bringing.  Everyone who has supported these cases will appreciate the following has been important for now and the future:

• The government has been forced to defend its conduct
• There is now a public and historical record of conduct of the government, their advisors and the Courts during this period
• Theses cases have forced publication of meetings and decision processes that would otherwise have remained secret
• These cases have significantly helped raise awareness of the absence of benefit to children and the presence of real risk of harm by the mRNA injectables 
• The determination of the government to avoid scrutiny or questioning of mRNA injectables has been made plain on the Court record
• The government’s and the health regulators’ knowledge of the risks of the mRNA injectables has been made plain on the Court record by their inability to deny those risks.
• The approach of the Court (see last updates and below) is exposed and on record.

It matters not whether a government manages its health response benevolently, malevolently, negligently or foolishly.  When the Courts will permit no challenge to a government response (because it is supported by government-appointed-experts for a government-declared pandemic and government-declared emergency), and when those government-appointed experts are elevated beyond scrutiny, a huge gap – a chasm - in protection of the citizens against government is created.  The temptation of government ministers to declare further pandemics and emergencies is obvious and will surely not be resisted.  The government hardly needs to legislate to avoid judicial interference via judicial review proceedings when the Court chooses to shut its eyes and close its ears. 

These battles may not have ended as we wished, but others will be fought.  Perhaps the most pressing battle is in the Court of public opinion.  The Courts do not exist in a political vacuum and when media reporting of public opinion is forced to shift, we may expect the Courts to follow.

In the meanwhile, also placed on the record is a massive thank you to all who have contributed financially and otherwise to support these cases. 

In the same week as the Court has thrown out the challenge in respect of jabbing 5 to 11-year-olds with the mRNA injectables (link below), Mr Justice Poole, after the long awaited oral hearing, refused the claimants permission for judicial review also in respect of the over 12s.  

The arguments put forward had been drastically reduced for a very narrow focus specific issues, particularly as below. However, like with the 5 to 11s, the decision reveals a disturbing attitude of the Courts.

The hearing was last week but the judgment, only just approved, is here. The issues in this case have been complicated but let’s get straight to easiest point to understand and for all to be concerned about.

A reminder of the background

On 3rd September 2021 the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advised that a very small marginal benefit of injecting healthy 12-15s was outweighed by concerns for known and unknown risks.

Stepping in to the breach, the government-appointed Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) – Prof Chris Whitty and co – then looked for additional benefit in avoiding the “the wider societal and educational impacts” that would flow from disruption to schools that may be caused by Covid related absences. They duly found an additional benefit, relying on a modelled calculation from Warwick University, that injecting the 12 to 15s would save an estimated 110,000 days of school absence.

That advice was given on 13th September, urgently communicated and recommended to Sajid Javid in a policy advice given him that same day when he tweeted his decision that the programme would go ahead.

Why the decision was irrational

The CMOs justified their advice principally on the basis of the modelled calculation. Without that model, the CMOs identified no real benefit and the JCVI recommendation against injection would have stood.

The problem is this: the model calculated absences caused by Covid infection that could be saved (estimate 110,000 days) but DID NOT INCLUDE any calculation to estimate absences caused by administration of the programme or side effects of the injection.

From data in the original clinical trials, this could be expected to be in the order of 8% to 10% of the children having at least 1 to 2 days absence per dose. (This happens also to be borne out by real life data from the USA.) How does the maths work out? Suffice to say, more days of school would be lost because of side effects of vaccination than were modelled to be saved.

Very simply on this point, the Claimants complained it was irrational of the CMOs and Sajid to ignore and not take account of, or ‘factor in’, disruption to education that would be caused Vaccine side effects.

What the Court said

With our emphasis added, on this issue the Judge said:

    “The write-up of the Warwick model by the CMOs expressly includes a caveat about school absence:

•  "There may also be some educational costs of vaccination: a small amount of school time is likely to be lost as a result of children attending vaccination sessions and some may have side effects of the vaccine that may lead to school absences which are not factored in here."

    That caveat does not discredit the usefulness of the modelling, it merely indicates that the caveat has to be taken into account. Since it is stated as a caveat by the CMOs it must be concluded that they did take it into account.”

Put more succinctly: from a statement that Vaccine-caused absences are not taken into account [in the model], we must conclude the CMOs did take Vaccine-caused absences into account [presumably elsewhere and somehow].

However, the govt has made no assertion of where or how Vaccine-induced absences were taken into account, certainly not in any documents filed in or referred to in Court and has disclosed no witness or documentary evidence. The key policy advice document on which Sajid Javid made his decision (disclosed by the government lawyers as late as 30 June 2022 and presented in Court) offers no further clues.

The how or where absences from side effects of the vaccine was ‘factored in’ remains unexplained. The implied conclusion of the Court must be this: it is rational for Chief Medical Officers, looking after the interests of children, consciously to decide not to estimate the absences caused by vaccination even though this might wipe out the estimated saving of absences caused by Covid infection. 

Of wider concern, and echoing a repeated feature of the government policy in response to the virus, the Court finds no criticism in this approach: when weighing the balance of benefit v risk , the government can assess the benefits while choosing not to assess the risk of harm.  They can look at just one side of the equation.

Why was it not necessary to assess the absences likely to because by Vaccine side effects? How could that be rational when the model and calculation could have been done so easily and quickly just from the Pfizer clinical trial data? The Judge, like the government, has offered no explanation. Is the Court really to proceed on the basis it can assume there is a reasonable and acceptable explanation, even if the government cannot or will not disclose it?

As in the decision of Mrs Justice Warbey siding with the government against the 5 to 11-year-olds (see last update), it seems ours is not to reason why.  We must conclude that the decisions of Ministers and their expert advisers need not be explained and are not to be challenged.

Appeal

The Claimants have a very short time to consider appeal. This case has proceeded for over a year already and the Claimants, reliant on the generosity of donors to this fund and an independent backer, have had to pay government costs in excess of £100,000 in addition to own legal costs.  Bearing in mind that the Claimants in Judicial Review claims have to front load the work involved, present evidence in support and provide all documents to the Court, it will be understood why crowd funds in this matter are exhausted.  These latest decisions, together with those in other cases on the Covid stage, appear to expose an unmovable position of the Courts. Pursuing the benefit of winning an appeal decision when weighed against the risk of solidifying that position in the Court of Appeal, presents a fine balance.

The decision whether to appeal will be confirmed in a further update.  Meanwhile, a huge thank you to all who have supported this case financially and by bringing attention to it.

The Court has finally listed the oral hearing of the application for judicial review.  It will be held on 21 July 2022 at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London.

Since nothing much else has been able to happen in progressing this case meanwhile, please see last updates for further details and for how this case overlaps with the challenge in respect of roll out to 5 to 11-year-olds.

We still face a long fight ahead.  Your support, both financial where you can afford and in publicising this challenge remains vital.   

This case continues. 

Delay in this update has been the desire to give a date for the next hearing (of the renewed application for permission to go to a full trial of the claim).  It's been too long a wait and while the claimants are still waiting for a hearing date to be set, so this update can wait no longer.

Success

Shared widely in social media and reported internationally, despite not getting the disclosure from the ONS that was sought, an important admission was obtained in Court.  

The ONS accepted through their barrister that the increase in deaths in young males age 15 to 19 between May and December 2021, coinciding with the injectable being rolled out to the wider youth population, was statistically significant. That means it needs explaining!  So far, the government, JCVI and MHRA have been notably silent in responding to demands from the public for an explanation. An explanation may not be given in this particular case, but it is now a significant issue in any further legal challenges regarding these injectables and in the public arena. The importance of this admission should not be underestimated. 

The nonsense

Remember when the JCVI said on 3 September, when not recommending roll out to 12 to 15-year olds, that consideration of education and wider social implications was outside their remit? And remember the roll out to 12 to 15-year-olds was nevertheless then justified by Mr Javid with the CMOs estimating and expected 110,000 days of school absence would be saved by the vaccination roll out while they also expressly did not take account of potential school absence from adverse effects of the injectable?  How things change.... 

In a JCIV statement on 16 February 2022, recommending offer of the injectable to 5 to 11-year-olds, the JCVI considering days off school education was now in their remit and that they should look at that together with adverse effects! 

If these were relevant consideration in February 2022, they must surely have been relevant considerations back in September 2021. What's more, the February analysis suggests that had these matters been taken into account in September, the calculation of benefit from Mr Javid with the CMOs would have disappeared.

Next hearing

At the next hearing, this is liable to be the focus of everyone's attention. Next update when a hearing date is given but meanwhile the February statement has added strength to the case.  

The claimants do, however, need further funds to be able to continue this case to a full hearing.  Thank you for your support and please keep sharing this important case.

The Court has relisted the hearing tomorrow at the Royal Courts of Justice.  A hearing will go ahead but it will not be the oral renewal of the wider application for permission to bring the claims.  

Instead, the hearing is of an application against the Office for National Statistics to disclose information that may prove to be of vital importance, not only for this case but in provoking urgent review of decisions in the UK and elsewhere to authorise or roll out the Covid-19 vaccines to children.     

The information being sought is not to establish there is necessarily a causative link between vaccination and death, but that there is sufficient evidence of a strong signal such that urgent investigation is required (and has been required for several months).

In particular, the Claimants will ask the Court to note that the current published data indicates that since the vaccines were made available to children there has been a significant increase in male deaths, approximately 20% on latest figures, over and above the average expected from the previous 5 years. However, taking account of delayed reporting it is possible that this figure is very much higher.  

The Claimants will be again be represented by barrister Francis Hoar. The anonymous information asked for, in respect of all deaths of children and young people age 12 to 19 years old in the period May 2021 to date, is:

1. Age
2. Sex
3. Whether the child or young person had dose 1 of a Covid-19 vaccine (and whether Moderna or Pfizer)
4. Whether the child or young person had dose 2 of a Covid-19 vaccine (and whether Moderna or Pfizer);
5. The number of days death followed dose 1 (dose 2 not being administered);
6. The number of days death followed dose 2

This is the sort of information which the Claimants would expect the government and JCVI to be "clamouring for", to use a phrase of the Judge at the last hearing in this matter.  

As always, thank you for you moral and your financial support without which this challenge could not be brought.

The Court has listed the oral hearing of the application for permission to bring the claims.  The hearing will be at the Royal Courts of Justice on 13 January 2022 where the Claimants will be represented by barrister Francis Hoar.

As per the last update, having been refused permission on paper but with very limited reasons, this is a fresh consideration of the application before a different Judge.

As things have moved on since the claim was first brought at beginning of September 2021, the application will be more centrally focused on the decision of the Secretary of State, relying on the CMOs to go against the recommendation of the JCVI.  We have seen the attitude of the Court to challenge of regulations made in respect of carehome workers, but that is not a reason to be overly pessimistic. This case is quite different looking at very specific decisions rather than a set of regulations. Do read the last update where some of the key issues have been set out. 

We must press on for the sake of the children of course. Most reading this update will be aware of concerns for a significant increase in mortality rates in young people since the Covid-19 vaccines have been rolled out to them.  The Claimants continue to seek from the Office for National Statistics to disclose anonymous information to show for each death recent whether an individual had had none, one or two doses and the number of days after which death followed.  

This is the sort of information which the government and JCVI would be thought to be "clamouring for", to use a phrase of the Judge at the last hearing in this matter.  However, for reasons unknown, the Court has so far not responded to the Claimant's application for an order for disclosure. 

As always, thank you for you moral and your financial support without which this challenge could not be brought.  

Having considered the matter on all documents, statements and submissions filed, The Honourable Mr Justice Jay last week refused the Claimants' application for permission for judicial review of government's roll out of the vaccines to 12 to 17 year-olds. As is standard process in this type of case, the Claimants have therefore renewed the application, the effect of which is the matter will be considered by different Judge with benefit of oral argument from the parties' barristers.

In the meanwhile, the reasons for the refusal are short. A summary might be to say the Judge decided that the Claimants are simply trying to present an alternative expert view to those of the government advisors whereas they have to show the advice received or government's decision on it was irrational. Of course, that is indeed largely what the Claimant's need to show but on what basis the Judge has determined they will be unable to do so is not readily apparent on the face of the Judge's reasoning.     

Links are provided below to the Judge's decision and other key documents. 

It may be recalled that the CMOs' had relied on a modelled predicted saving of 110,000 days of school absence between approximately 2.7 million pupils, and a supposed consequent avoidance of mental ill-health and disruption to education, as justification to override the JCVI advice against roll out.  There is much available to read via the links, but the following extract from the renewal application does not need a law degree to understand. 

1. ....fundamental points not apparently addressed in the judgment include:
   1. how any rational assessment of the benefit of avoiding X days of absences from school could expressly exclude consideration of an assessment of the likely absences caused by vaccine adverse effects and/or administration of the vaccination programme itself.
   2. how any rational assessment of a purported risk to mental health caused by absence resulting from Covid-19 (known to be almost always of short duration for children because of mild symptoms) could be made without any evidence as to the extent and seriousness of any such risk or of the assessment of such risk.
   3. how any rational assessment of benefit versus risk (i.e. the benefit of avoiding X days school absences, as modelled, versus the risks of Vaccine adverse effects causing quantifiable X days school absences as well as of known physical harms to children as expressly recognised by the JCVI)  -which is the required balancing exercise required in order to consider administration of any medical treatment -  could be made by the CMOs or the Defendant without taking the risks-side of that equation into account, either at all or in any measured way, so as to arrive at a conclusion that benefit outweighed the risks; and in particular
      1. how the CMOs or the Defendant could arrive at that conclusion in the absence of any new data contradicting the JCVI’s earlier assessment that the risk of harms to children were serious and with long-term unknown sequelae, notably from heart inflammation, and that more data was required;
      2. how the CMOs’ and Defendant could rationally assess the benefit they identified (avoiding X days’ school absence) as outweighing the risks (unknown future harms) identified by the JCVI, the expert body advising the government on vaccine safety and causing it to recommend against mass vaccination of healthy 12-15 year olds;
      3. why the CMOs (and the Defendant) did not assess the benefit of avoiding X days school absences in light of the CMOs’ own knowledge that the level of natural immunity in children from prior infection is about 50%, which level is substantially higher that the level used in the Warwick university modelling study on which the CMOs relied in assessing the potential benefit of the Vaccines in avoiding school absences.
      4. why the CMOs and the Defendant did not assess the benefit and risks of other solutions to the health impact of school absences, such as, for example, changing the policy of causing absence through the mass testing and isolation of healthy children, as alternatives to conducting a mass vaccination programme of healthy children (such an alternative would result in a risk to children no greater than Sars-COV-2 itself, which is a negligible risk, but would avoid all the risks of adverse effects of the Vaccines). The effect of this policy is a factor which should reasonably be taken into account in considering why children have suffered mental ill health because of school absences imposed by it. A few days’ absence from school for children because of a head cold has not previously been regarded as a cause of mental ill health. Repeated and lengthy mass enforced absences inflicted by government policy might well be.
2. Further, the judgment does not identify the evidence by which the learned judge made an assessment that the Defendant has taken relevant matters into consideration and that he did so proportionately, save as to say that it is broadly in the evidence provided by the Defendant’s witness statements.  Further, where the judgment refers to ‘good evidence’ that the vaccine reduces infection and transmissibility, it does not identify the source of that good evidence (whether by reference to the Defendant’s witness statements or otherwise), nor does it indicate how the learned judge has been able to assess the evidence as ‘good’. Nor does the judgment indicate whether or how the Defendant made any reasonable assessment of the degree to which the Vaccines reduce transmission of Sar-COV-2  when  assessing the presumed benefits of vaccination. Underestimating the level of prior infection by about half renders reliance on the CMOs’ (and therefore the Defendant’s) calculation of benefit unsafe and should be enough to disturb the reasonableness of their reliance on that calculation of benefit. Add to that an unreasonable assessment of effect of the Vaccines on transmission, for example because that assessment relies on measures of effectiveness against Alpha not Delta, (which is accepted to be by far the predominant variant in the UK) ought to put the matter beyond question: the estimate of benefit in avoiding X days of school absences is intrinsically unreliable and there is therefore no real benefit on any basis for a mass vaccination programme of healthy 12-15 year olds.
3. The learned judge has effectively given the benefit of no doubt to the Defendant’s witnesses, apparently assuming that what they say can be taken at face value as statements of the facts that were relied on. However, this ignores the serious and substantial issues raised in the Claimants’ Reply Submissions pointing to demonstrable inaccuracies in that evidence, as well as evidence and submissions brought to the Court’s attention that the Defendant has failed to take account of material pieces of evidence.  The Defendant’s position, and the qualifications of those people advising him, are not sufficient reason to favour their evidence in such way, certainly not in the face of the failure to disclose key reports relied upon in their decision making and credible evidence presented by the Claimants which may prove their assertions to be wrong.

Links:

• order refusing permission
• submissions in reply to defence evidence
• statement of Claimants' solicitor
• renewal application

The Claimants have asked for the next hearing to be at earliest opportunity having regard to the nature of the decision being challenged and the fundamental concern raised within the claim that the safety of many children is at risk, as appears to be being reflected by a concerning number of reports of sudden and unusual onset of serious illness and clotting events following vaccination. 

We will provide further update when we know the date of the oral renewal hearing. Meanwhile, thank you for your support. Please keep sharing and encouraging others to pledge support.  

The Court has adjourned the matter to a further hearing to allow the government further time to respond to the case as set out most recently by the Claimants. This is because the JCVI and CMOs issued statements, and the Secretary of State made his decision to administer the mass vaccination, only after this claim had been issued. In response to those statements and that decision, the Claimants have necessarily had to amend the claims.    

The government had asked for the case to be struck out but it remains before the Court.  The Hon. Mr Justice Jay accepted that the Claimants' barrister, Mr Francis Hoar, had done enough to persuade him to adjourn determination of a number of issues in the case.  The Judge also rejected the government's argument that consideration of the case should be limited to how it affects the two claimants.  In terms he accepted they were representative and were entitled to raise the issues for consideration with reference to the effect on the wider population.

However, the Court refused to order any immediate pause of the mass vaccination programme. Having heard submissions for the parties on how the case should proceed, the government seeking a long timetable and delay, the Claimants seeking a speedy hearing, the Court has given directions that the government submits further response and evidence by 11 October with the Claimants having to 15 October to reply. The Court will then reconsider the matter promptly.

We may post a further update when the dust has settled on today's proceedings.

Again, thank you for your support.  Please keep sharing and encouraging others to pledge their support too.

The Court will hear the Claimant's application for permission to proceed with the case.

Here you can read the: Claimants' Skeleton Argument

This will be a useful resource for anyone wanting to know the facts and issues.  The hearing is at 10:30am at the High Court in London tomorrow, 28 September 2021. It is not expected to be livestreamed. 

Please keep supporting this case. We will post a note of the outcome as soon as we are able.

Having been knocked back by the Court of Appeal, we are simply back to what the Court had first ordered: a hearing set for Tuesday 28 September to consider whether the case is given permission to proceed.

As we are back in the Administrative Court, barrister Francis Hoar will be presenting the case for the Claimants and barrister, Mr Ewan West, for the government.

There is no indication yet that it will be livestreamed but we will let everyone know if it is.

Contrary to suggestion by the government, this case is not about the protection of just two children who themselves may be likely to resist injection with what the manufacturers accept is novel "gene therapy". It is to protect thousands, indeed millions, of healthy children against treatment with no benefit but plenty of risk of harm.

Thank you for your continued support and repeated pledges.  

The Court has listed the hearing of the argument immediately to pause the mass vaccination of healthy children. 

Before: Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing 

Date: Weds 22 September

Time: Not before 10:30am

Venue: Court 63, The Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London  

Livestream link: watch the hearing (click on the title of the case AB & anr –v- The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care & anr)  

Counsel for the Claimants: Miss Jacqueline Perry QC and Mr Francis Hoar

Counsel for the Defendant: Mr Ewan West 

The Court's decision may be expected at the end of the hearing.

Despite a last ditch attempt by the government to persuade the Court of Appeal against it, the Court has listed the case for an interim hearing this Wednesday 22 September.

The Court will decide whether to pause the roll out of injections to healthy children age 12-15 and 16-17 pending a fuller hearing of the matter.

We await details of times. The lawyers will be present in person with press also. The general public will be able to watch the case on livestream on line.

Come back here for updates and we will post the link when available.

Meanwhile, if you are a parent or guardian, you should ensure the school has a written note from you (a) that you do not consent to your child being vaccinated and (b) neither you nor your child has been given adequate information in order for it to be possible for informed consent to be given. 

Please keep pledging your support to this important case.

On the last update we posted the Order which the Claimants appeal.  

Here you can read the fairly short Grounds of Appeal.

Thank you for you pledges, every one of which counts and gives a message.

On 15 September, the Claimants applied for a third time for the Court to listen to their argument, for just half a day, before the programme of mass injection of healthy children got underway.

The defence and objections from the government have been almost completely technical. There has been no detail of any defence on the basis that the vaccination program is justified and of benefit to the children or anyone else. Rather, the thrust of the government's defence is to argue the Court cannot look at the evidence or question the recent decisions.

This morning, 17 September, the Court refused to allow the Claimants into Court before 28th September.  On the evidence presented to the Court by the Claimants, this could dangerously too late for many. 

Here you can see the Order and reasons of the Court. 

The Claimants have this afternoon, 17 September, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal asking for Order to be overturned and for the Court of Appeal to consider the matter itself. 

To be clear, the main purpose of the hearing will be to decide whether or not the government should be required to pause the mass injections.  We expect to hear on Monday whether a hearing will be happen on Tuesday 21st September.

This case could not be more important. Please pledge to show your support.

The Court has on 7 September 2021, and for a second time, refused the Claimants' application for an urgent hearing.

The Claimants had asked for just half a day for the Court to listen to oral argument to consider whether to pause the roll out of injections of experimental mRNA vaccine technology, producing increasing reports of clotting and other adverse effects including death, still under emergency authorisation and never before given to humans, to the whole of our healthy population of children aged 12-17.

It would be inappropriate here and in any public forum fully to express the strength of our disappointment and frustration at this decision. The government's lawyers had been asked why there is any need to press ahead and what harm would be caused by a short delay. As the Court was informed, they were unwilling or unable to answer.

Looking forward, it is unlikely that an appeal would succeed or move things forward more quickly. The reality, therefore, is that there is no potential of a hearing before the week commencing Monday 20 September.

The Court's view was that to delay consideration of the Claimants' application for 14 days to allow the government to prepare its response was not in fact a refusal. However, that delay has the practical effect of denying the urgent relief sought and leaves the full resources and machinery of the state to be put into gear, as soon as the government considers it has backing from the four CMOs to give it sufficient political cover, to proceed with the mass injections.

As the public is aware, the latest JCVI advice has been against roll out and the government appears to be looking to the CMOs for other excuses, not necessarily related to any health benefit to the children, to justify proceeding despite the JCVI advice. You can be sure that the reasons for any decision will be scrutinised carefully by the legal team to consider whether another urgent application to Court may be appropriate.

While the Courts refuse to step in, it is essential that parents and commentators make their views known about the government's intention to rush ahead with this roll out.  

This is going to be a hard fought and time intensive legal battle. Please continue to pledge your support and share and encourage others to do so, across the world.

This case was formally issued in the Administrative Court in London on 2nd September and the claim has been served on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and JCVI.  The Claimants are 12 and 16 year-old sisters. The Court has made an Order that the Claimants' identity shall remain anonymous.  

You can read here the:

• Statement of Facts and Grounds
• Witness statement of the Claimants' solicitor
• Expert report

We have applied to the Court for an urgent hearing to consider an interim order to pause any roll out of the vaccines to under 18s until the case can have a full hearing. Although the Court has shortened the normal time for the government to provide its initial response, from the usual 21 days to 14 days, the Judge initially considering the papers has for the time being refused the application for a hearing to consider pausing the roll out. The legal team has filed an urgent application to the Court to reconsider that decision.

The documents are long but worth taking time to read. They expose some of the important information not widely known or reported in the mainstream media although the start and end of the case is that vaccines remain of no benefit to healthy children but present considerable risk of known and unknown harms.  

Please donate to the case if you can and share our updates as we go along. Thank you for your support.  

Today, 2nd August, the first step in the legal action has begun. The letter before action has been sent to the MHRA and to Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. They have been asked to reply within 14 days, a time shorter than is usual in judicial review applications given the urgency.

The text of the letter can be seen here: Letter before action to MHRA and Sec of State for DHSC

Since launching this campaign, the JCVI have issued a statement providing further information and stating its view that the vaccine should not be recommended to children and young people, not just up to age 15, but to age 17. We are therefore able to challenge use of the vaccine up to the age of 17, not just 15. and we are doing so.

It is important to note that particularly vulnerable children who may benefit from any treatment will be not affected by this action. It is open to the government and MHRA to revoke the authorisation for general use but to impose conditions of use so that, where the clinical assessment for an individual child is shown that they will benefit, treatment remains available.

Thank you everyone who has donated so far. Please keep up the donations and keep sharing far and wide. We have a long way to go but need to get there quickly!