Vaccinating Adam
Adam does not want to be vaccinated. The state decrees that vaccination is in his best interests. Adam is a healthy man in his thirties who survived the ‘pandemic’ with no ill effects. Others around him, who had been injected, became ill. In order to circumvent Adam’s wishes the state sedated Adam and administered the covid injection against his will. Agents of the state have attempted to drug him on five previous occasions by lacing his tea or orange juice with sedative. On three occasions Adam poured the drink down the sink. On the other two occasions, in November 2023 and June 2024, Adam was sedated and vaccinated. The state now proposes to give Adam a booster injection.
Adam is being treated like this because he has Down syndrome. The state judges that Adam does not have capacity to make medical decisions for himself and overrules Adam’s mother, Catherine, who does not want her son to be vaccinated. It assesses that Adam does not fully understand the situation, the nature of covid, and the effects of the vaccine. From this case comes the question as to what constitutes capacity. The events of the past four years have made it quite clear that most of us do not fully understand those things. Where is the cut off point? Why is dislike of needles sufficient for one person (such as MP Charles Walker) to refuse injections but not for Adam? Why is Adam’s ignorance of the state’s motives distinct from anyone else’s? Many people in Adam’s age cohort have refused the covid vaccinations with the number increasing with each proferred injection.
Is the state not fallible? The state is after all constituted of people and no less susceptible than any other group of people to error and oversight, flaws and vices. The injection is being forced upon Adam because of guidance offered in the government’s Green Book. This guidance is being given the force of law, but it is not law. It is guidance. It is founded on evidence that Professor Adam Finn of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has admitted was poor. It remains poor. Not only is there no long term safety data, but for people with Adam’s condition, there is no data at all.
Down Syndrome is the most well known of a group of conditions categorised as Trisomy - a disorder in which individuals have an extra chromosome, one more than the usual 46. Down syndrome is the presence of an extra number 21 chromosome in each cell. Other Trisomy conditions are Edward and Patau syndromes (indicating extra chromosomes 18 and 13).
The leading expert in this field, Professor McCaffrey of the University of North Carolina, has explained that due to the nature of the condition, the Trisomy cohort may be at significantly more risk from messenger RNA injections than they would be without.
The UK government advises covid injections for all those it categorises as vulnerable, including all those with learning disabilities. Are all people with learning disabilities the same? Are all people with learning capabilities the same?
What is the reason for this broad categorisation? It does not seem to respect the individual and their unique needs. Why not, if the aim is health care?
The vulnerable in state care seem to have been particularly affected by government health measures over the past four years. They were isolated from the wider community on the basis of harmful lockdown policies, given dangerous drugs and do not resuscitate orders. On such occasions as they were permitted to visit their families they were subsequently isolated in their rooms for fourteen days. Where the state used the protective language of shielding, some children and adults in care were alone in their rooms for the best part of two years. This was particularly cruel on those with Down Syndrome who are often especially sociable and physically affectionate.
This is true of Adam to the extent that he rejects masking and social distancing. Why was the state prepared to accept his capacity to reject these ostensible health measures but not the injections?
It is anomalous that in a recent similar case heard by the Court of Protection, Tom, a 22 year old man with a trisomy condition, was able to reject the state’s desire to inject him on account of the court’s acceptance that the medical “landscape” had changed. During the course of a protracted case that extended over two years, barrister Dr Oliver Lewis (PhD in Human Rights law), “repeatedly asked,” that Tom’s mother and only carer, “be jailed and have her assets seized,” for her unwillingness to inject her son. After enduring the burden of such a threat Tom’s mother’s stance was eventually upheld by the judge.
Such overbearing state control is of concern to parents of children with similar conditions. When these children reach the age of 18 the state invests itself with the authority to make decisions on their behalf, thus assuming the role of parent and presuming itself more capable than the parents themselves. This is part of an increasing governmental shift towards parental control that is evident from vaccination in schools and in the application of Gillick competence (-where the state can deem a child under 16 to have the understanding necessary to make serious medical decisions). It is evident in its efforts to overrule the mothers of both Adam and Tom and its casual dismissal of their opinions. Tom’s life expectancy of one year has been vastly exceeded in his mother’s care, which the barrister supposedly representing him on behalf of the state, sought to remove.
The prevailing view in such cases was expressed by Judge Hayden in SD v RB Kensington and Chelsea when he opined of vaccination that: “…strongly held views by well-meaning and concerned family members should be taken into account but never permitted to prevail nor allowed to create avoidable delay.” The subject of one case was injected within an hour of a decision being reached, before any appeal could be made.
That the state might sedate and inject a man who refuses medication because it deems his refusal uninformed, has implications for us all.
Scientism = Tyranny
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS GOVERNMENT. They have become tyrannical and don't represent the people.