British health officials say school ‘Covid teams’ can vaccinate 12-15yos WITHOUT parental consent, so long as child agrees

[AdamX]

Medical staffers can legally vaccinate school kids aged 12-15 without the consent of their parents, as long as the child agrees to the procedure, the British government has told schools in new coronavirus guidelines.

British health officials say school ‘Covid teams’ can vaccinate 12-15yos WITHOUT parental consent, so long as child agrees — RT UK News

 

https://www.rt.com/uk/534971-vaccinate-kids-parental-consent/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by AdamX
added link

[AdamX]

Just now, AdamX said:

Medical staffers can legally vaccinate school kids aged 12-15 without the consent of their parents, as long as the child agrees to the procedure, the British government has told schools in new coronavirus guidelines.

British health officials say school ‘Covid teams’ can vaccinate 12-15yos WITHOUT parental consent, so long as child agrees — RT UK News

If this does not get parents up in arms, nothing will.

If there is any other medical procedure a child can consent without requiring a parent to agree, I dont know it.

The bigger question is why are parents right being removed. What is going on and who is behind this.

[Convert54]

Ammunition for the conspiracy advocates! As said what or when has such a circumnavigation of parental rights been so blatant in manner or matter?

[Changnam43]

The source of this 'news' is RT.

Do you think, just maybe, it could be untrue Russian propaganda?

 

[Bob20]

15 minutes ago, Changnam43 said:

The source of this 'news' is RT.

Do you think, just maybe, it could be untrue Russian propaganda?

 

42 minutes ago, Convert54 said:

Ammunition for the conspiracy advocates! As said what or when has such a circumnavigation of parental rights been so blatant in manner or matter?

Misquoting is their specialty. You should know that.

Here are the facts:

Prof Chris Whitty, the lead CMO for the UK, said it was a "difficult decision" and should not be seen as a "silver bullet".

But he said it could be an "important and useful tool" in reducing school disruption in the coming months - and when combined with the marginal health benefit identified by vaccine advisory body the JCVI, it meant offering a Covid vaccine to all children was appropriate.

He said clinicians would share information on the vaccine with parents and if there was a difference in opinion between a parent and child, a clinician would bring them together to try and reach a consensus.

However, in the rare cases agreement is not reached, the child could give consent themselves if the clinician considered them "competent", he added.

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

1 hour ago, AdamX said:

Medical staffers can legally vaccinate school kids aged 12-15 without the consent of their parents, as long as the child agrees to the procedure, the British government has told schools in new coronavirus guidelines.

And opening up both parties to some big legal challenges or worse financial lawsuits. The government may be protected but the person injecting the child most probably ain’t. What is next …. Children over the age of 12 is now legally considered as an adult?

[Changnam43]

I'll preface this by saying that I am pro-vaccination.

Thank you to Bob20 for setting out with greater detail and more accuracy Chris Witty's position.

I expect the government will very quickly back-pedal on what he said.  Imagine if a 12 to 15 year old, vaccinated without parental consent, were to get seriously ill or die as a consequence.

There would be a public outcry; rightly in my view and doubtless legal action.

It's not going to happen as Chris Witty describes. 

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, Bob20 said:

Misquoting is their specialty. You should know that.

Here are the facts:

Prof Chris Whitty, the lead CMO for the UK, said it was a "difficult decision" and should not be seen as a "silver bullet".

But he said it could be an "important and useful tool" in reducing school disruption in the coming months - and when combined with the marginal health benefit identified by vaccine advisory body the JCVI, it meant offering a Covid vaccine to all children was appropriate.

He said clinicians would share information on the vaccine with parents and if there was a difference in opinion between a parent and child, a clinician would bring them together to try and reach a consensus.

However, in the rare cases agreement is not reached, the child could give consent themselves if the clinician considered them "competent", he added.

You are talking about the DETAILS, the important FACT and which is not disputed is that beginning of next week three million 12 to 15 years old UK school-going children will be offered ONE dose of the Pfizer gen-modifier. 

The right of the child having the option to go against the consent of his parents (who are responsible for his well-being), is so outrageous that I almost suspect that the UK government deliberately included that in their proposition, so that they could back-pedal on it and show that they 'are open for reason'.  While in mean time the whole plan, which is no more or less than a humanitarian CRIME, will simply proceed.

With three million 12-15 years old jabbed, it is a statistical certainty that this will result in myocarditis cases in the short term.  And nobody knows what the longer-term effects of that mRNA-jab will be, as these jabs are still only approved for 'emergency use', and the jabbed are being the guinea-pigs in a mass-experiment while at their age they have as good as nothing to fear from covid. 

[AdamX]

2 hours ago, Bob20 said:

Misquoting is their specialty. You should know that.

Here are the facts:

Prof Chris Whitty, the lead CMO for the UK, said it was a "difficult decision" and should not be seen as a "silver bullet".

But he said it could be an "important and useful tool" in reducing school disruption in the coming months - and when combined with the marginal health benefit identified by vaccine advisory body the JCVI, it meant offering a Covid vaccine to all children was appropriate.

He said clinicians would share information on the vaccine with parents and if there was a difference in opinion between a parent and child, a clinician would bring them together to try and reach a consensus.

However, in the rare cases agreement is not reached, the child could give consent themselves if the clinician considered them "competent", he added.

Simply adding 'rare' does not negate anything in the original story.

Its still allowing children to overrule the parent, if a third party says so.

Ask any parent what they think of that principle, and I can guarantee you will see the anger generated. 

 

 

[AdamX]

3 hours ago, Changnam43 said:

The source of this 'news' is RT.

Do you think, just maybe, it could be untrue Russian propaganda?

Roll out the chestnuts.

[AdamX]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

You are talking about the DETAILS, the important FACT and which is not disputed is that beginning of next week three million 12 to 15 years old UK school-going children will be offered ONE dose of the Pfizer gen-modifier. 

The right of the child having the option to go against the consent of his parents (who are responsible for his well-being), is so outrageous that I almost suspect that the UK government deliberately included that in their proposition, so that they could back-pedal on it and show that they 'are open for reason'.  While in mean time the whole plan, which is no more or less than a humanitarian CRIME, will simply proceed.

With three million 12-15 years old jabbed, it is a statistical certainty that this will result in myocarditis cases in the short term.  And nobody knows what the longer-term effects of that mRNA-jab will be, as these jabs are still only approved for 'emergency use', and the jabbed are being the guinea-pigs in a mass-experiment while at their age they have as good as nothing to fear from covid. 

Well said.

Your posts are really well thought out and really get to the central point in a way that I strive towards,

[Bob20]

5 hours ago, Changnam43 said:

I'll preface this by saying that I am pro-vaccination.

Thank you to Bob20 for setting out with greater detail and more accuracy Chris Witty's position.

I expect the government will very quickly back-pedal on what he said.  Imagine if a 12 to 15 year old, vaccinated without parental consent, were to get seriously ill or die as a consequence.

There would be a public outcry; rightly in my view and doubtless legal action.

It's not going to happen as Chris Witty describes. 

I think that everyone is pre-programmed to think it's virtually forced, but it isn't.

Option A) parent/child agree to let them take the jab

Option B) parent/child agree to not let them take the jab

Option C) parent/child disagree, then: option 1) only the child wants the jab vs option 2) only the parent wants them to have the jab

I am absolutely sure that most families have a good relationship and will agree on A or B.

The ones who end up with C, will talk with a doctor. And -only if the child is deemed competent- they get to decide. That is not going to be a significant chunk of the total group.

BTW, I am hesitant here too, because it concerns 1) a marginal medical advantage with 2) less school disruption.

But if you see how rules are made in Europe, it follows a pattern. Because if they can save even only 20 people annually in a country by reducing the speed-limit in built-up areas at huge expense, they do it too...

[BlueSphinx]

 

And just when I thought that it is not possible to sink any lower than the jabbing of THREE MILLION 12 to 15 your olds in UK, I came across this one.  

It’s been less than a week since reports suggested Pfizer was preparing to seek approval from U.S. and European medicines agencies for its vaccine in 5-11 year-olds. The pharmaceutical is now seeking authorisation for the vaccination of American babies as young as six months this winter. 

MailOnline has the story   >  Pfizer Set to Seek Approval for Its Covid Vaccine in U.S. Babies This Winter

In a move likely to cause international controversy, the company intends to apply for authorisation to immunise American infants within the next two months.

The timeline will depend on the findings of in-house trials looking into whether the vaccines are safe and effective in youngsters aged six months to five years.

Frank D’Amelio, Chief Financial Officer at Pfizer, told an industry conference yesterday that the firm plans to “go file” by November, the Financial Times reports.

“We would expect to have… data for children between the ages of six months and five years old that we would file with the FDA,” D’Amelio said at the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. “I’ll call it in the weeks shortly thereafter the filing of the data for the five to 11 year-olds.”

Pfizer was already planning to seek approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the jabs to be given in children aged five to 11 by October.

But the latest comments confirm the firm’s intention to work its way down much younger age groups. They will be given a lower dose than adults. …

Scott Gottlieb, who headed the FDA under former President Donald Trump and now sits on the board of directors at Pfizer, says that the emergency use approval process for vaccinating young children could be done in a matter of weeks.

Gottlieb says the pharmaceutical giant is expected to file the paperwork with the federal government requesting authorisation to vaccinate kids as early as September.

Worth reading in full.

Source: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/15/pfizer-set-to-seek-approval-for-its-covid-vaccine-in-u-s-babies-this-winter/

 

[Americanbob]

20 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The right of the child having the option to go against the consent of his parents (who are responsible for his well-being), is so outrageous that I almost suspect that the UK government deliberately included that in their proposition, so that they could back-pedal on it and show that they 'are open for reason'. 

Sadly, I think governments have such a hard-on for doling out vaccinations that the risks of circumnavigating traditional parental rights is probably a negligible concern. When you're in the midst of a planet-wide lie, anything (and everything) goes.

They need to achieve vaccination goals (95%?). To do so requires children - this is the most effective age group to go after since they're old enough to believe they can think for themselves, want to control their own lives, and feel invincible.

Anyway, this is already being done:

• Sydney cleared out a concert hall and diverted 40,000 vials to innoculate 15,000 high school children in August.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-vaccinates-thousands-of-high-school-students-to-stop-delta-11629288000

• Similarly; "The country has authorized the Pfizer vaccine for anyone 16 years old and older. Children aged 12 to 15 are authorized to receive the shot if they meet certain criteria, such as living in a remote community or having a medical condition."

So, if you're 12yo and live in the sticks - you're good to go.

Something's wrong when a person isn't old enough to vote, leave high school, or have a beer - but can decide if they want an unapproved (yes it is STILL unapproved) vaccine.

This virus doesn't cause child mortality in any significant way. Additionally, children have the best immune function and shot at being totally asymptomatic if infected. Whatever the purpose - this vaccine is not about protecting children. Instead, it's a desperate bid of the government, and an opening salvo to jab children. Once the teens are inoculated the push will be to jab younger kids, and start vaccinating infants as part of their normal vaccine schedule. How many horrible things have happened in the last two decades to 'protect the kids.'

'Reason' isn't being served up anymore. Only propaganda, consequences and the next buffet of lies for the populace to feed on.

 

[BlueSphinx]

16 minutes ago, Americanbob said:

Sadly, I think governments have such a hard-on for doling out vaccinations that the risks of circumnavigating traditional parental rights is probably a negligible concern. When you're in the midst of a planet-wide lie, anything (and everything) goes.

They need to achieve vaccination goals (95%?). To do so requires children - this is the most effective age group to go after since they're old enough to believe they can think for themselves, want to control their own lives, and feel invincible.

Anyway, this is already being done:

• Sydney cleared out a concert hall and diverted 40,000 vials to innoculate 15,000 high school children in August.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-vaccinates-thousands-of-high-school-students-to-stop-delta-11629288000

• Similarly; "The country has authorized the Pfizer vaccine for anyone 16 years old and older. Children aged 12 to 15 are authorized to receive the shot if they meet certain criteria, such as living in a remote community or having a medical condition."

So, if you're 12yo and live in the sticks - you're good to go.

Something's wrong when a person isn't old enough to vote, leave high school, or have a beer - but can decide if they want an unapproved (yes it is STILL unapproved) vaccine.

This virus doesn't cause child mortality in any significant way. Additionally, children have the best immune function and shot at being totally asymptomatic if infected. Whatever the purpose - this vaccine is not about protecting children. Instead, it's a desperate bid of the government, and an opening salvo to jab children. Once the teens are inoculated the push will be to jab younger kids, and start vaccinating infants as part of their normal vaccine schedule. How many horrible things have happened in the last two decades to 'protect the kids.'

'Reason' isn't being served up anymore. Only propaganda, consequences and the next buffet of lies for the populace to feed on.

Great first post @Americanbob !  Welcome to the Forum!

[Faraday]

Welcome to the forum, Bob.

 

@Americanbob

[Fluke]

In the link provided by Russian news in the O.P , a link to the U.K Gov Website , it has this written :

 

 

How parent or guardian consent will be obtained

For those aged 12 to 15 years consent will be sought by the SAIS provider from the parent or person with parental responsibility in the same way as for any other school vaccination programme.

A consent form and information leaflet provided by the SAIS team will be used to seek parental consent. Parents will also be provided with a contact number for the SAIS team in case of any queries. Forms should be returned by the deadline agreed with the team. You may be asked to collect these forms from parents on behalf of the SAIS provider team or it may be done electronically.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-resources-for-schools/covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-children-and-young-people-guidance-for-schools

 

   Which contradicts the stories heading , 

[Americanbob]

Countries already jabbing kids under 12yo:

• Cuba - as young as 2yo
• Chile - 6yo
• China - 3yo
• El Salvador - 6yo
• UAE - 3yo

"Meanwhile, American children between 5 and 11 could be eligible for the vaccine sometime this fall, pending approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer's CEO said Tuesday that the company plans to submit data on its vaccine from studies involving that age group by the end of this month."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/17/world/covid-vaccine-children-countries-intl-cmd/index.html

[AdamX]

19 hours ago, Americanbob said:

Sadly, I think governments have such a hard-on for doling out vaccinations that the risks of circumnavigating traditional parental rights is probably a negligible concern. When you're in the midst of a planet-wide lie, anything (and everything) goes.

They need to achieve vaccination goals (95%?). To do so requires children - this is the most effective age group to go after since they're old enough to believe they can think for themselves, want to control their own lives, and feel invincible.

Anyway, this is already being done:

• Sydney cleared out a concert hall and diverted 40,000 vials to innoculate 15,000 high school children in August.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-vaccinates-thousands-of-high-school-students-to-stop-delta-11629288000

• Similarly; "The country has authorized the Pfizer vaccine for anyone 16 years old and older. Children aged 12 to 15 are authorized to receive the shot if they meet certain criteria, such as living in a remote community or having a medical condition."

So, if you're 12yo and live in the sticks - you're good to go.

Something's wrong when a person isn't old enough to vote, leave high school, or have a beer - but can decide if they want an unapproved (yes it is STILL unapproved) vaccine.

This virus doesn't cause child mortality in any significant way. Additionally, children have the best immune function and shot at being totally asymptomatic if infected. Whatever the purpose - this vaccine is not about protecting children. Instead, it's a desperate bid of the government, and an opening salvo to jab children. Once the teens are inoculated the push will be to jab younger kids, and start vaccinating infants as part of their normal vaccine schedule. How many horrible things have happened in the last two decades to 'protect the kids.'

'Reason' isn't being served up anymore. Only propaganda, consequences and the next buffet of lies for the populace to feed on.

The sheet intensity of pressure to get the vaccine into every human being body is frightening.

What on earth could the motive be, because its no longer about public health.

[BlueSphinx]

On 9/17/2021 at 5:59 AM, BlueSphinx said:

And just when I thought that it is not possible to sink any lower than the jabbing of THREE MILLION 12 to 15 your olds in UK, I came across this one.  

It’s been less than a week since reports suggested Pfizer was preparing to seek approval from U.S. and European medicines agencies for its vaccine in 5-11 year-olds. The pharmaceutical is now seeking authorisation for the vaccination of American babies as young as six months this winter. 

MailOnline has the story   >  Pfizer Set to Seek Approval for Its Covid Vaccine in U.S. Babies This Winter

In a move likely to cause international controversy, the company intends to apply for authorisation to immunise American infants within the next two months.

The timeline will depend on the findings of in-house trials looking into whether the vaccines are safe and effective in youngsters aged six months to five years.

Frank D’Amelio, Chief Financial Officer at Pfizer, told an industry conference yesterday that the firm plans to “go file” by November, the Financial Times reports.

“We would expect to have… data for children between the ages of six months and five years old that we would file with the FDA,” D’Amelio said at the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. “I’ll call it in the weeks shortly thereafter the filing of the data for the five to 11 year-olds.”

Pfizer was already planning to seek approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the jabs to be given in children aged five to 11 by October.

But the latest comments confirm the firm’s intention to work its way down much younger age groups. They will be given a lower dose than adults. …

Scott Gottlieb, who headed the FDA under former President Donald Trump and now sits on the board of directors at Pfizer, says that the emergency use approval process for vaccinating young children could be done in a matter of weeks.

Gottlieb says the pharmaceutical giant is expected to file the paperwork with the federal government requesting authorisation to vaccinate kids as early as September.

Pfizer says their covid vaccine works in kids 5 to 11.  

And Pfizer will soon seek approval for that 5-to-11 years old age category covid-vaccine.  Blogger El Gato Malo did some research on the evidence provided by Pfizer and the real-world data available, whether that claim can stand up to scrutiny. 

Doing a fact-based risk vs reward study, this is how it looks.  Pretty terrible!

This means that - even when applying the most positive assumptions - re Vaccine effectiveness, that: 

# the cost of saving 34 hospitalizations is 300 hospitalizations. 8.8X risk to reward

# the cost of saving 0.31 deaths is 3.63 deaths. 11.7X risk to reward

Any parent confronted with these figures has to decide whether they are willingly exposing their children to these kind of (short-term) risks, and we are not even taking into account the longer-term vaccine adverse effects of these jabs.

= = = = =

The full article complete with all figures and references to underlying studies/data can be accessed here:     > https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/pfizer-says-their-covid-vaccine-works?fbclid=IwAR0ciinpHsEJqjOjxPAomKhU4XbkV0uiabwZbrNKPy_RpVQOswObkSSsEAQ

 

 

[Bob20]

I've already given detailes info on this, so it's just more intentional misinformation whilst they know better already...

You know their MO, so it's not unusual that the title doesn't cover the story...

https://thethaiger.com/talk/topic/5267-british-health-officials-say-school-‘covid-teams’-can-vaccinate-12-15yos-without-parental-consent-so-long-as-child-agrees/?do=findComment&comment=60849