As old as Magna Carta
Informed consent is the founding principle of medical ethics and human rights. It is a basic requirement in medicine that before any procedure, a screening intervention or treatment is undertaken, the individual must consent. To do so, they must be informed of both the benefits and the risks before deciding whether to proceed. It is well-known that patient choice is crucial and that it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to undergo an intervention or medical procedure after carefully considering the benefits as well as the risks posed by it. Against the backdrop of societal pressure to embrace ‘the greater good’ concept, individual inalienable rights, that are written into law in the Magna Carta, were seemingly shattered. Regarding covid vaccinations, covid PCR tests, masking, and much more – it seems the basic principles of medical ethics, as well as the Hippocratic Oath, were completely discarded across the globe.
Crucially, the basic principle of ‘do no harm’ and individual sovereignty does not become less relevant in a pandemic; on the contrary, it becomes ever more paramount. The notion that someone must take an experimental medication for a newly devised intervention never before tested in humans, with disturbing data from animal studies, is beyond concerning. The farcical, haphazard AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccine clinical trials published in 2020 lacked pharmacokinetic assessments, had poorly defined end points, excluded pertinent control arms, and were of inadequate duration to generate the necessary minimum medium-term to long-term safely data needed for FDA approval for a new intervention. Moreover, at the time of mass vaccination rollout it was known that the Covid-19 injections did not halt transmission or reduce the likelihood of preventing infection. Thus, propagandising or coercing people to take these experimental injections under the guise of societal obligation, defies the principles of medical ethics. Moreover, it seriously calls into question the principles of informed consent, which specify that inducements or coercion must not be used under any circumstances.
When invited recently for a routine cervical smear examination, the leaflet that accompanied the invitation letter included a lot of detail about the benefits but also the risks of cervical screening. It outlined information about the harms caused if a false positive result was identified, and contained several peer-reviewed references. It also stated “it is up to you to decide”. This was in stark contrast to the NHS leaflets and package inserts promoting the Covid-19 vaccines, which did not mention a single risk, exaggerated the virtues of the vaccine based on minimal clinical data, and omitted to include a single reference, despite the completion of the trials at that stage. Categorically, the Covid-19 vaccine rollout and the weaponised propaganda to entice citizens to comply with receiving the experimental injections is a blatant breach of the Nuremberg Code, medical ethics and the principle of informed consent. Since these are largely untested and experimental in nature, and approved on the basis of a fraudulent emergency use authorisation, ultimately, every injected person was an “experimental subject”; thus, they should have been informed of all the potential hazards and adverse effects of these interventions.
Let us remind ourselves of the importance of informed consent and how this is emphasised in the Nuremberg Code. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” Importantly, this latter element requires that “before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him or her the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his or her health or person, which may possibly come from his or her participation in the experiment”.
Children self-evidently cannot give informed consent for an intervention based on the above Nuremberg Code criterion. Parents effectively give consent on behalf of a minor. Despite this basic tenet, the government and NHS insisted that children (aged 5 years and above) receive the vaccination in schools, and in many instances without parental consent, which is entirely in breach of informed consent. In some countries, parents who did not comply with a full childhood covid vaccine schedule were denied schooling – such egregious action clearly violates informed consent and the Nuremberg Code.
The ‘no jab, no job’ threats orchestrated by governments and global corporations were a despicable medical ethical infringement. These breaches have not been limited to the Covid-19 vaccines. The use of coercion to induce individuals to take bogus Covid PCR tests as a criterion for allowing people to continue to work or to live in society exemplifies erosion of informed consent and medical ethics. The PCR tests are invasive and not without risk; HART have highlighted the huge problems of overdiagnosis, yet they were propagandised as a criterion for allowing people to work. Even if individuals had a negative test result – during 2020 and 2021, quarantining was expected. These policies highlight not only the absurdity of the Orwellian measures imposed during the height of the pandemic, but serve as a chilling reminder of the scale of deterioration from basic medical ethics.
The informed consent definition was changed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) so that they could impose tyrannical measures across the globe. However, the definition of informed consent cannot change just because the principles don’t fit with the government. It is important people know their rights – and informed consent is central to free will and participating in a free society. Considering that medicine is promoted as a field that puts the patient at the centre of the decision-making process, it is inconceivable that informed consent has been quashed to such an extent. The Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta and constitutional rights state that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights and that no one can be governed without consent. People cannot consent to an intervention or process without being given the information on which to base their decision. It is critical for all people to be acutely aware of the fundamentals of informed consent.
No one can take away your inalienable right to informed consent. The government, medical professionals and all service providers are obligated to abide by informed consent. The cruelly imposed do not resuscitate (DNR) orders that were placed on tens of thousands of elderly or vulnerable patients in care homes during the pandemic, at a time when hospitals denied admission to anyone with such an order, were nothing short of criminal. The Liverpool Care Pathway or medical euthanasia that was briskly deployed in care homes whereby patients were placed on protocols, which were highly likely to hasten their deaths, is, at best, a violation of human rights. Protocols also denied choice and without choice there can be no proper consent. Alternative cheaper therapies, such as ivermectin or vitamin D, were not on offer and protocols lead to denial of antibiotics.
In reality, informed consent is all around us. It is a continual process that should be reassessed each time a treatment is changed or updated – it cannot be assumed, as it is a proactive, ongoing not static process; consent needs to be given each time a change occurs. This applies to diagnoses, experimental interventions as well as approved medications and devices. Every individual should receive an explanation of the risks, benefits, and side effects, with no obligation to continue with the current treatment protocol. The often missed aspect of the discussion of informed consent is the option to learn about alternatives to the proposed options. All this information should be transparent. A patient is not ‘locked in’ to recommendations by medical professionals or healthcare providers. Appropriate time to allow the recipient to decide should also be encouraged as part of the informed consent process. Yet in the covid pandemic, all alternative treatment options were censored, scientific discussion and debate erased, and a concerted effort ensued to conceal alternative options as well as second opinion opportunities, all of which are embodied collectively in informed consent principles. When covid boosters were given to target new variants, all patients should have been informed of the studies behind the new iteration of that medication, the associated benefits, risks and adverse effects. Incredibly, none of these data existed for the boosters following the first two covid vaccine doses; thus, informed consent is absent by default.
Freedom of information requests and the Court decision to release the full Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine safety data within 8 months, revealed thousands of adverse effects from these injections, which were known to the regulators in October 2020, several months before the rollout of the vaccines to the public. The medical establishments and the regulators have become politicised – they have withheld data throughout the covid crisis, and directed policy decisions based on flawed or fabricated data, combined with political propaganda. A freedom of information request showed that the CDC spent $1 billion to promote covid vaccines and suppressed any discussions about potential risks. In such circumstances, no vaccine recipients have given their informed consent. It is imperative that transparent communication of both the risks and possible benefits of any intervention is made known to the public.
Only through continued open dialogue, unbiased research with no ties to industry or manufacturers of the interventions or tests in question, combined with a commitment to patient safety, can we hope to protect public health and honour the basic principles of medical and human rights of informed medical choice.
