With apologies, the last update was incorrect to suggest the end of the programme was a new development.  The 'news' that the programme was ending at 31 August 2022 was in fact already foreshadowed as a footnote in the original JCVI advice of 16 February 2022.  It is important to be aware of but was simply not being trumpeted in the mainstream media. To correct the last email therefore:  

Just 6 weeks after the Court dismissed the challenge to the programme to jab the UK population of 5 to 11 year olds as being 'totally without merit', the programme comes to an end, the downside modelled scenarios used to justify a jab programme not happening, yet again.

The NHS Green Book reads (see page 24):

"This one-off programme applies to those aged 5 to 11 years, including those who turn five years of age before the end of August 2022. Subject to further clarification, on-going eligibility in 2022/23, after the one off-programme, is expected to be for children in the academic years where children are aged 11 or 12 years. Use of the paediatric formulation is advised for commencing (and for completing) vaccination for children in the relevant academic year."

The punctuation is poor and the language is obtuse, stating the one-off programme that is now ending “includes” those turning 5 by end of August 2022, instead of saying those who have not turned 5 by end of August 2022 are excluded from the programme.  The reference to advising vaccination for children in academic year where they are age 11 or 12 (first year secondary school) clearly implies it is not advised for children of primary school age. 

In summary of the position at September 2022, the mRNA jabs are no longer in the doctors’ list of things to do but, since MHRA authorisation has not been revoked (yet), they remain available, not to be offered as routine or as part of any programme but to sit on the shelf for any parent demanding a gene therapy experiment on their child.   

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 a decision that is extremely disappointing and of grave concern, Mrs Justice Farbey has dismissed outright the claimant's application for judicial review and to challenge the offer Pfizer's mRNA injectables to healthy 5 to 11-year-olds.  Her decision on 19 July 2022 reveals the Court’s determined and seemingly now absolute reluctance to scrutinise government decisions where Covid is involved.

As it stands, it also arguably leads to the practical conclusions that the Court will not entertain challenge to any:

• ministerial decision said to be in response to a pandemic reliant on expert advice 
• advice or decisions of any expert regulatory body (certainly including the MHRA and JCVI)
• poor or mis-information being provided by the government to the public about medical treatments (regardless of any misinformation or coercion)

There could be an exception, for example a case of obvious fraud, but it is hard to imagine those circumstances being discovered.

Whether to appeal

It is difficult to see an opportunity not taken in the decision to grasp a nail for the coffin.  Declaring it “totally without merit”, the only way forward is to the Court of Appeal but this carries great risk, since complete endorsement of this decision by the Court of Appeal would set a precedent that other judges would have to follow.

The decision with its limited reasons is here. On whether to appeal, and time is very short, the claimants will need to consider and reflect at least on the following extracts of the decision.

A challenge of highly detailed and scientific evidence

The judge asserts 

• “the well-established principle that the courts will be reluctant to interfere with multi-factorial decisions that raise broad questions of social policy and/or decisions that rest on highly detailed technical and scientific evidence.”

Fair enough, but the challenge was precisely that there was no highly detailed technical and scientific evidence in respect of key issues (for example, risks from: endless production of toxic spike proteins gathering around ovaries, liver, spleen and other organs; toxic lipid nano particles crossing the blood brain barrier; damage to the immune system and increased risk to covid infection; that the off the scale increase of vaccine injury reports may have a causal connection etc).  

The government’s defence did not deny that many of these significant risks to children had not been taken into account at all, let alone by consideration of highly detailed technical and scientific evidence.  Is it enough for the Court that the government says "No comment.  We need not answer any specifics, just take our word for it we have experts who will have looked sensibly at everything.“?

Realism

• “Given the evidence-based views of JCVI and MHRA, on which the Defendant was entitled to rely and which the court would take into consideration, the submission that the decision under challenge could not have been made by any reasonable public body is lacking in realism”

Even though the government did not deny the existence of specific risks and would not say how they had been taken into account, the lack of realism lies in the lack of appreciating the apparent assumption that the JCVI and MHRA shall always and only have ‘evidence-based views’ and shall be assumed to have obtained and taken all relevant evidence into account.  

On that realism, the advice and decisions of these regulatory bodies are put beyond scrutiny and they may in practice act without accountability.

• “The Claimants’ submissions amount upon analysis to no more than a disagreement with the risks and benefits of vaccination for young children”

It is difficult to understand the reasoning for the Judge’s analysis as none is given.  The challenge was specifically not about disagreement with advice but claimed that specific risks had not been considered or factored into the advice –claims not denied by the government. That is a very conventional judicial review challenge.

Complaint is made about recitation of evidence, but if the Court is not provided with evidence of the existence of unconsidered risks, then the Court would reject on the basis the claim is without evidence.  The Court may expect to be provided with evidence but not explain what if any regard it has to it. 

• “This is upon analysis a collateral challenge to the work of the JCVI and/or MRHA. It is a factual challenge which is inapt to found a claim for judicial review against the Defendant. It is bound to fail.”

Referring principally to questioning on what basis the MHRA say there is no signal to be seen in the off the charts increase of reports of adverse reactions, no basis has been disclosed.  The MHRA are hiding their reasoning and this was no collateral challenge. It was expressly a direct challenge to the work of the MHRA and JCVI.  If they are not making reasonable assessments the minister cannot legally rely on them.  Unfortunately, it seems that the Court will not contemplate the possibility that scientists will make an unreasonable assessment of available information.  It appears, instead, determined always to assume that a challenge to a factual assertion by an appointed expert body (of the type, for example, “there is nothing to see here”) cannot and will not be considered in judicial review proceedings.

Informed consent

In relation to the provision of informed consent,

• “The court will not micro-manage the wording of information for parents which is a matter for the Defendant and those who advise him.”

It is not wording that matters, but the information.  Or rather, the lack of it.  Conveniently, none of that need be addressed where the Court considers:

• “Even if the available information gave rise to a generalised argument about informed consent, it would not apply to the Claimants who are not vaccinated and who have not suffered any breach of a right that could or should be vindicated in judicial review proceedings. They would not benefit from the grant of any relief.”

If parents and unjabbed children cannot bring a challenge, who can and for what benefit?  Children who have already been jabbed?  It's a bit late for them.  And given the civil immunity from liability for damages in respect of the injection, where would the Judge suggest there would ever be the required benefit the Court requires of bringing a claim before it?  

The dismissal of this aspect of the claim is tantamount to a green light for the government to ignore long-established principles in relation to providing information about medical treatments, and for anyone administering them to do so as well and in ignorance.

What consequences?

The Judge notes that the decision to mass-inject our 5 to 11s

• “has significant social and economic consequences for the United Kingdom”

One might have imagined this observation would weigh in favour of giving some further consideration to the claim.  Instead, it is used to criticise the claimants for not bringing the claim promptly enough.  But what consequences does the Court have in mind?  Is it the instilled fears and feelings of the adult population that need addressing promptly?  

There is much that the Court does not see the need to address at all or, if addressed, to explain.   

The bigger picture

In light of this decision, it must also now be hard to imagine a successful challenge to a decision to inject day old babies with the experimental mRNA gene therapy, let alone the mass injection of 6 month to 4 year-olds which is being discussed right now by the JCVI.

The protection given by the principles of informed consent have primarily been established through decades of case law, by the Courts stepping in to protect the rights of individuals.  Judges did so in accordance not only with the common law rights of UK citizens but the rights of European and World citizens, formulated since the Second Word War as a defence against the return of fascism and authoritarian regimes that was enabled by the subjugation of rights of individuals to the will of the government of the time.  

By this decision, and now joining the MHRA whose Chief Executive has boasted of it moving "from watchdog to enabler”, the Court has finally and fully stepped aside from protecting the UK citizens. It has abandoned all restraints on the power of the government when wielded in the name of Covid (or any other pandemic that may be declared).

Children cannot expect any protection from the Courts where they are put at risk in the name of Covid.

The next update will follow the claimant's decision on whether or not to seek permission to appeal the judgment.  Meanwhile, the Claimants and the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC) would thank everyone who has supported this case financially and through awareness.

The Secretary of State has filed his defence with Court. It is striking for a failure to deny so much of what is put forward in the claim regarding risks and lack of benefit. Can there be any conclusion other than that the strategy is to avoid having to admit serious risks exist and that they have been ignored?   

There is much to say about what is not said, which is shocking, but it is not difficult to understand:

• First, read the Reply.
• Second, if you have the appetite, you can read the Defence. 

Third, please share and encourage others to pledge donations to this case. Thank you.

Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, filed his defence on 10 June.  Details will be posted as an update next week, but it can fairly be stated that he is doing all he can to avoid addressing issues of risk and why parents are not being told about them i.e. the issue of informed consent.  Meanwhile... 

Legal action forces publication of hidden minutes 

The claimants had for some months been pressing for disclosure of minutes of JCVI meetings and of various other committees. The requests and complaints have largely been met with silence or vague statements that they would be published "in due course".  

Funny then, that 5 sets of minutes in the key period of January and February 2022 leading up to the JCVI advice to offer Pfizer shot to 5 to 11s, that in due course turned out to be late on 9 June 2022, the day before Sajid Javid had to file his defence.

All minutes published as at 15 June 2022 are available here. 

Their contents are remarkable for what they do and do not contain.  That they had not been published, or even disclosed to the claimants within the litigation, is a matter of grave concern.  Minutes are being published up to 18 months late, when the JCVI says they will normally publish within 6 weeks.

Why do they withhold minutes and reasoning for decisions from the public?

Comments for the claimants may be reserved to be made to the Court (in due course).  However, one matter that has been brought to the Court's attention is regarding the minutes of 3 February 2022 were published late on 9 June 2022. This was long after sight of the claim in this case, though inference cannot be drawn from that. However, they rely on and link to an advice statement of 16 February, two weeks into the future. How does that happen?  The claimants are asking.

Keeping up the pressure

The pressure is clearly being felt.  On 15 June, a further 3 sets of minutes, from November and December 2021, were published by the JCVI.  Faced with possible Court sanction, it is clear that we can expect more minutes to be released soon. 

Success in this case would have immediate ramifications for all other children and upwards into other age groups, not least in forcing the government to give more information, to admit the nature of these mRNA shots and risks they dare not even respond to in their defence.

The pressure is on.  Legal action is working.  Please share this case and ask others to share and support. We have a long way to go.  

It will be a week or two before we see the Secretary of State’s response to the claim. There may be further correspondence between the parties’ representatives but there won’t be much to report.  In the meanwhile...

This update is to recognise and give a huge THANK YOU. That goes out to those who spoke out bravely on mainstream and social media and stepped forward as claimants and representatives for their fellow professionals (consultant Dr Steve James, G.P. Dr Helen Westwood, dental nurse Lillia Neale, Project Manager Charlotte Gracias, Paramedic in Primary Care Matthew Taylor, Chaplain Father Giles Pinnock, Registered Midwife and Nurse Rosalyn Williams, dental student Thomas Shaw) and to all those involved in the #Together campaign who gave time and skill, without payment or reward, to support the legal challenge the vaccine mandate in the NHS. The success of that campaign of course led to Sajid Javid’s announcing he would revoke his mandate.

Although the formal issue of proceedings was averted when the regulations were eventually revoked (we could not believe it until it happened), an enormous amount of technical and detailed work had to be done in short period of time to have the legal case fully prepared and ready to go, the considerable legal difficulties faced having been made clear from the Court’s rejection of the earlier challenge on behalf of carehome workers. However, not formally issuing proceedings also meant there was no prospect of recovering costs from the government. From the crowd fund, after payment of discounted legal costs and third party fees of the crowdfunding site and an escrow account to meet anti-money laundering and regulatory purposes, an excess was left of just over £10,000.

That sum has now been re-donated to this legal challenge to on behalf of the 5 to 11 year olds. As many will appreciate, the science (not “The Science”) is fast moving, with new studies and new data being revealed every week. These are specialist and unprecedented cases, a tremendous amount of work and long hours have to go into considering what is and is not useful to these challenges and in presenting it to the Courts. These donations are vital in allowing this work to continue. Without your donation and without the campaigning work of #Together and many others, these legal challenges are just not possible since the claimants risk, if the case is not won, becoming personally liable for the government’s legal costs. Few people can afford that risk.

Everyone working on these cases regards it as a privilege but again, and on behalf of the claimants in this matter and all involved, thanks are due to everyone whose support this donation represents. Please keep up the support. Help hold to account those that would inject healthy children with an experimental treatment for no appreciable benefit.

Finally, a plug for #Together, tirelessly campaigning against mandates and restrictions on our freedom and our children’s freedom. They are again supporting this case without any payment or reward. If you haven’t done so already, it will take just 30 seconds to read and sign a statement of support at togetherdeclaration.org.

This claim against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and JCVI was formally issued on 16 February 2022 in the High Court in London.

The names of the Claimants, a mother with her boy and girl aged between 5 and 11, will remain anonymous.  Links to the claim documents are below.  They are well worth reading by everyone and a valuable resource with many links to source materials.

In headlines:

• the case remains no benefit to children but many significant risks of harm
• the absolute abandonment of principles of informed consent is addressed head on
• the assertion by the MRHA, that there are no signals of harm from the Covid-19 vaccines is challenged, especially in relation to Yellow Card and VAERS reporting is irrational (as is shown by with comparison with their response to influenza vaccine monitoring)
• the JCVI and MHRA are called out for using out of date information and getting their calculations wrong as a result
• where heart inflammation results, to dismiss it as 'mild' and with 'full recovery' ignores the very poor mid to long term prognosis for a significant percentage

The 'doctors who say no' give their support with a comprehensive statement from consultant paediatrician Dr Ros Jones, MD, FRCPCH from CCVAC setting out the facts. 

In the correspondence to date the government has sought to evade direct questions put to them (see Annex A Benefits and Annex B Risk of Harms).  They can run, but they must not be allowed to hide.  This is one reason why this claim is so important. We must put on record what is being done to our children and who is allowing this. 

Please donate to the case if you can.  This case needs your support.

Links to:

• Witness Statement of Solicitor 
• Witness Statement of Dr Ros Jones, MD, FRCPCH  
• Statement of Facts and Grounds