Class Action Covid UK began in October 2020 as a legal challenge to the unconstitutional “lockdowns” of 2020-2021 and all the other harmful Covid Measures, many of which continue to this day.
Our claim was that government decision-makers (Johnson, Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and others) had caused financial, medical and psychological harm to individuals and the UK public by negligent acts and/or omissions that breached their duty of care for the welfare of the public.
In February this year we were advised that the prospects of success for a case against government ministers would be low because, essentially, they are immune from liability for any actions taken in the course of policymaking that involve the “weighing of competing public interests”.
The focus on vaccine injury
We were steered towards focusing on vaccine injury and taking action against persons/organisations who administered the Covid vaccines, instead of the government (whose propaganda misled people into accepting them).
For the past two months we have been reviewing vaccine injury cases, speaking with medical professionals and seeking further advice on the prospects of a vaccine injury case, the basis of which would be that lack of informed consent led the claimants to accept a medical intervention that they otherwise would not have agreed to.
Looking at all the information, and considering the legal elements involved in such a case, it is with a heavy heart that we must now announce that we are not able to proceed with a vaccine injury case on the basis of informed consent. This is for the following reasons:
(1) Bad standards of care (in medical practice)
In any court case, the judges must treat both parties as equal and allow each to present their side of the story. When it comes to assessing a breach of duty of care, they must assess the party alleged to have breached their duty by the standard of care that could be reasonably expected of them. In our vaccine injury case, we would claim that the person/organisation who administered the vaccine should have provided the claimant the opportunity to give fully informed consent (see below). But the fact of the matter is that a) fully informed consent is generally NOT given for ANY vaccine; and b) Covid vaccine administrators did not have the requisite knowledge to give sufficient information, even if they had wanted to.
To a layperson, this might suggest an increased level of liability; but in the eyes of the law, the opposite is true – you cannot expect someone to give you facts they did not have, nor can you place a legal obligation on somebody to go over and above their expected standards of practice.
What information should you have been given to make a fully informed decision about Covid vaccines? WE believe the information should at the very least have included:
(a) The Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) documenting the risks from the vaccine;
(b) The fact that the vaccine would not prevent you contracting “COVID-19” or transmitting it to anyone;
(c) The comparative level of risk of someone in your age or health category dying from “COVID-19” – so that you could make an informed decision as to whether you needed a vaccine that was only expected to reduce the symptoms* of such disease (not prevent you contracting or spreading it);
(d) The fact that the vaccine was still in its trial phase and had only been given temporary authorisation (making it, effectively, a trial – or experimental – product); and
(e) The fact that long term adverse effects from the vaccine were unknown.
* from the information that was submitted through our online form, many people told us that the first time they contracted “COVID-19” symptoms was AFTER their first vaccine, or at least after the vaccines had started to be rolled out (which could have been due to vaccine shedding). This would support the statistical work of independent scientists such as Norman Fenton and others that the vaccines had negative efficacy, i.e., that they produced more harm than good. So this challenges even the claims that the vaccines reduce symptoms of the disease they are supposed to prevent.
The GPs we spoke with told us that they believe the above facts ought to have been provided; that the General Medical Council (GMC) would expect a patient to be informed when a medical product is still in trial or being used “off-label”; and that the GMC would expect the PIL to be provided BEFORE a jab, not after (or never). However, two defences stand in our way here:
- The medical profession at large was ignorant of many of the above facts (those who knew, and were concerned, opted out of administering the jabs). Therefore, the person who administered your vaccine (including the organisation) could not have been legally expected to have informed you of points (b) through (e) because they were not informed themselves. The reason for this is government propaganda and regulatory capture, allowing manufacturer’s erroneous claims to go unchecked.
- In relation to point (a), it is not standard practice in vaccination to provide the patient with the PIL ahead of vaccination with enough time to digest the information and make an informed choice. So, even though this may be the GMC’s recommendation for “good practice”, the GMC does not require it. Further, even if we could successfully argue that PILs should have been provided prior to vaccination, the information they contained was set out in such a way that most people would have been undeterred by what were listed as “rare” or “very rare” side effects, and would have taken the vaccine anyway to “save lives”, get out of lockdown, see family overseas, etc. In other words, they would have given valid consent.
Thus, the sad irony of this case is that bad standards of care in relation to informed consent for vaccines has gotten the medical profession off the hook in relation to Covid vaccines.
2. Legal immunity
In 2012, the Secretary of State for Health provided legal immunity for medical practitioners and all others involved in the administration of a medicinal product without a marketing authorisation (this covers Covid vaccines, and the legislation was updated in 2020 to cover all new categories of ‘vaccinators’).
When we initiated Class Action Covid UK, our case was against UK government decision-makers including the (then) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock. So this legislated ‘immunity’ should not have applied because the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for the regulations and for the temporary authorisation of the vaccines.
However, as mentioned above, we found that government ministers have effective legal immunity by another route, that of ministerial discretion. Ministerial discretion provides that if ministers are “weighing up competing public interests”, then they can choose what information they provide and to whom. They cannot be held liable for any harm resulting from their decisions or actions. So our claim that “the government should have provided sufficient information to the healthcare industry to enable healthcare providers to sufficiently inform members of the public” would have failed because of ministerial discretion.
Therefore, the buck must stop with the medical profession, which is obliged by law to obtain informed consent for medical interventions by providing sufficient information for an individual to make a medical decision based on his/her particular circumstances (i.e., information should be tailored to the individual). However, we are then faced with the obstacle of legal immunity for vaccinators as provided by the 2012 legislation. This has proven to be an insurmountable obstacle.
So, even if we could successfully argue that “claimants would have made a decision NOT to be vaccinated, had they been given sufficient information to make a fully informed choice”, we would likely fail at the hurdle of legal immunity; that is, any person** delivering a vaccine that causes injury or death gets off the hook, because the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care says so.
** “person” in law includes human beings and legal entities so, for the avoidance of doubt, this would include organisations and their directors, CEOs, etc.
Speaking with lawyers versed in clinical negligence / informed consent cases, we are informed that a case like this would be incredibly costly, perhaps tens of millions or even a hundred million just to get into court. So, even if we could cross the above two hurdles (highly unlikely), the costs issue would be very burdensome, and there would additionally be a potential costs award if we lost the case (i.e., we would need to pay the defendants’ costs, likely to be in the hundreds of millions).
For a case with low prospects of success, third party litigation funding is impossible to procure. Experienced solicitors who are able to work on a contingency fee basis (no win, no fee) are similarly loath to take on such a case: 3 top clinical negligence firms were approached on our behalf and we have spoken informally with a fourth, who echoed the sentiments that a consent case for vaccine injury would fail.
So what next?
We’ve contacted the potential claimants who submitted the details of their vaccine injury to let them know why we can’t proceed. Many of these cases seemed to have a good case for causation but would have failed for the reasons listed above. In other cases, causation would have been harder to prove, for instance, where there were underlying medical conditions that the defendant could argue were an alternative cause.
Peter Todd of Scott-Moncrieff and Associates is leading the vaccine injury case against AstraZeneca based on liability under section 2 (liability for defective products) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Vaccine injury cases under this Act are NOT covered by the legal immunity provisions mentioned above. If you know somebody who has been severely injured by the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, you/they may wish to contact Scott-Moncrieff and Associates for advice about their case.
At present we only know of the AZ case; there may in the future be similar “defective product” cases against Pfizer and Moderna, however we are not aware of any at the moment.
What next for CACUK?
We have dedicated 2½ years to trying the legal route to challenge so-called “Covid Measures”, not just to address the Covid situation but to prevent these kinds of unnecessary, harmful, draconian measures in future situations at government’s behest.
We have come to the end of the road with respect to a legal case, because ministerial discretion makes ministerial accountability for these situations impossible. We have, however, amassed a wealth of resources while working behind the scenes on the case. So we’ll be going through a process of getting these resources online as we think they’ll provide a valuable resource and could be useful in future situations – there could be attempts to lock us down for a “climate emergency” for instance, or another mass vaccination campaign for a future “pandemic”.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WHO are fond of conducting tabletop simulations of pandemics, and the WHO is eagerly “strengthening” its International Health Regulations (2005) for “pandemic preparedness” that are legally binding on 196 countries, because it is certain the next pandemic is just around the corner.
In similar fashion, we who desire freedom of medical choice and wish to trust our own wisdom for health decisions can develop our own “pandemic preparedness” – by knowing the facts and knowing our rights.
Thank you for supporting CACUK throughout the last “PHEIC”. May we be undeterred by the WHO-coordinated global propaganda in the next one.
With our best wishes,
The CACUK team