Lawyers For Justice Ireland Official
115 subscribers
6 photos
47 links
Collaborating pro bono Irish Lawyers working on behalf of The People. 🇮🇪
Download Telegram
to view and join the conversation
frontline staff as to the reporting of vaccine injuries to the HPRA reporting system. It seems evident that actual injuries and adverse events suffered after receiving the covid-19 vaccines are now, and will be for some time, unknown, particularly in the context of a new vaccine, still in trial. Is it the case that these medical professionals are advised to report all injuries, arising conditions, conditions not suffered previously, pre-conditions deteriorating after vaccine administration and all medical emergencies occurring in an individual, after a recent or previous covid-19 vaccination? Are medical professionals advised by the HPRA and the HSE, where the patient raises a concern about vaccine correlation in reporting a medical issue, that the presentation should be reported?
Are medical staff advised to report all such matters on the basis that this vaccine is issued under an EUA (Emergency Authorised Use) approval only, is still in trials and lacks medium to long term data as to adverse events.
If medical professionals are not advised to report all injuries arising as above, which presentations are excluded and why are they excluded in the context of a vaccine without medium to long adverse effects yet established?
I require your urgent and specific replies to these questions. It is reported by members of the public that doctors and nurses are often unable to respond when asked by people presenting for treatment if a previously given covid-19 vaccine was connected to the injury or condition suffered. It seems common practice that a report will not be made to the HPRA reporting system where the injury or medical condition complained of is not acknowledged (because it is unknown) to be caused by the vaccine. This is regardless of the fact that causation cannot be proved or disproved without proper investigation, following a report to the Register for Vaccine Injuries created for this purpose.
What training and assistance is offered to medical professionals in the making of reports of adverse events following covid-19 vaccinations? It appears to be a laborious and time consuming process, difficult to navigate in the system provided. What importance is given to enabling reports to be made in an accessible and user friendly way, where these reports must be made if patient safety is to be maintained.
Are medical professionals being advised that causation between injury and vaccine cannot be ruled out unless and until a proper investigation is carried out on foot of a full and comprehensive report on the HPRA reporting system? IF not, why not? ie if potential vaccine related injuries are not being reported, how can the current safety and efficacy of the covid-19 vaccines, as they apply to the public in real time, be established?
Vaccine Injury Reports issuing from the HPRA:
Finally, you state on the HPRA website that you examine and report on registered vaccine adverse effects as reported, monthly. For instance, you report as follows on vaccine injuries on the 4th November 2021:
Highlights from this update:
- Up to 26 October, a total of 15,705 reports of suspected side effects were notified to the HPRA. The number of COVID-19 vaccines administered as of that date was reported as 7,317,176, including 236,168 administered as a single dose, 3,571,557 as a first dose, and 3,509,451 as a second dose.1
- Whilst not experienced by everyone, all vaccines have some side effects, the vast majority of which are mild to moderate in nature. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the benefits in preventing COVID-19 illness. Overall, the national reporting experience continues to support the favourable assessment that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks. An overview of national reports received is provided in this safety update on page 5.
- On 29 October, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published highlights from its monthly safety committee meeting, which included information on COVID-19 vaccines. Topics of interest are summarised on page 7 of this update.
- The next HPRA safety up
date is due for publication on 09 December.
Can you clarify as to how many of these injuries were reported deaths? How many related to myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, neurological injuries, heart attacks, strokes, menstrual problems, miscarriages, still births, Guillain Barre condition, Bells Palsy, and/or other categories? The complete lack of detail is a serious problem in this reporting, constituting a failure to make such information available to the public. This is particularly relevant where access to the reports as logged to the Register are denied to the public.
I await your urgent response and you may treat this letter as a formal FOI request where relevant in releasing the information sought in this letter.
Your faithfully,
HAVE YOU BEEN REFUSED ACCESS TO A NURSING HOME, HOSPITAL OR CARE FACILITY TO VISIT A FAMILY MEMBER BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT VACCINATED?
We have been asked for assistance by people recently informed that they may not enter a nursing home or care facility to visit a family member or other in-patient, unless vaccinated.
There is no legal basis or lawful authority for refusing access to a Nursing Home or Hospital on the grounds of vaccination status, as matters stand. It looks very much like an overreach of management authority in our view.
It offends against the Equality Legislation 2012-2015 in discriminating between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The breach of the Equality provisions can be directly acted on by lodging a complaint with the WRC (we have described the procedure in a previous post and it can be accessed easily online) A Copy will go to the Nursing Home.
A requirement to provide information or proof of vaccination status further offends against articles 6 and 9 of the General Data Protection Regulations of 2018 and a complaint can be lodged with the Data Protection Commissioner straight away.
A denial of access to vist a patient in a Care Facility or Hospital cannot be justified on policy grounds alone, in our view. The Nursing Home has an obligation to respect the rights and well being of the patient and visitors wishing to remain in regular contact. They may not apply coercive restrictions on members of the republic lawfully entitled to make or receive visits with a family member. It is arguable that they may not apply exclusions which may be regarded as perverse where vaccinated people are widely acknowledged as being capable of getting and spreading a covid-19 infection, and there is no available data to establish that these people are more or less infectious than those unvaccinated, of which we are aware. Therefore, in the absence of lawful authority or established data to the contrary, the exclusion of family members on the grounds of vaccination status can be challenged where any facility seeks to enforce it.
The Nursing Homes and other facilities may be charged with liability for distress, including emotional and mental suffering, caused to patients and their family members as a result of such unlawful exclusions.
We will post a pre-action letter setting out these matters shortly, to include a request that the facility involved confirm that visits will be be resumed, taking normal precautions, as previously practiced
You can PM us if you wish to discuss any issues arising in relation to the foregoing
Lawyers For Justice Ireland
· November 5 at 7:02 PM


REPORTING VACCINE INJURIES ON THE HPRA VACCINE INJURY REPORTING SYSTEM.
QUESTIONS FOR THE HPRA
We posted on this subject on the 17th October 2021 and we have received a number of enquires as to how to go about reporting these injuries and how to bring a legal action where injuries (some serious) have occurred.
The most common theme here seems to be that people are not aware, and have not been made aware, that there is a vaccine injury reporting system available to them. They have not been given this information, or assume that this is a matter for the doctor or nurses to whom they reported the injury, or looked for medical assistance from, on presenting at the hospital. It is important to remember that the injured person may make this complaint themselves. It seems to be a common experience that the doctor or the medical professional first seen by the patient cannot, or is reluctant to, relate the injury to a recent covid-19 vaccination. The facts of the matter are that these are new vaccines, with EUA authorisation only, currently still in trials, and without medium or longterm data available as to adverse effects. It is hardly surprising that medical staff don't know, or are at a loss as to the cause of, your presentation to the hospital or the GP Surgery with an adverse effect or event. Which could conceivably be related to a previous covid-19 vaccination.
This, of course, is the point of a reporting system. Any injury or illness occurring after receipt of a vaccine, including those that are unexpected, novel, or suddenly arising to the sufferer, including a worsening of a previous condition, should be reported to the HPRA system in order to be properly investigated. It seems to be the case that frontline doctors and other medical professionals are often unaware of this.
Nonetheless you can report an injury suffered by yourself or an injury to another to whom you are a carer. This will provide a record of your injury and will be helpful in any subsequent legal action. There are indemnities in place for pharmaceutical companies producing the vaccines, unless involving fraud or criminality (should it arise). There is is a compensation fund in place if your injury is established as being connected to a previous covid-19 vaccine and there is potential liability on the part of any party administering the vaccines where there has been no effective informed consent, in our view.
It is also important to report an injury in the interests of efficacy and safety for the public being asked to get vaccinated, going forward.
The systems in place in the UK, The MHRA Yellow Card system and in the US, VAERS, include a register of individual reports which are accessible to be viewed by the public, on the site. Such access assists in the giving of informed consent to, in this case, a vaccine administered under EUA (Emergency Use Approval) approval only. We understand that this is part of the reason for maintaining a Register. However, the Irish system, the HPRA Vaccine Injury Reporting System, does not permit public access to the Register of Reports. You can make your own report and can seek access to the register to view your report on foot of an FOI request, but it is not clear what will be revealed on foot of that request.
The HPRA website states that a monthly review of the reported injuries is carried out, a report issued and the report is posted on the site. The issued report provides no information as to the kind of injuries reported, or the basis for the report's conclusions, or the nature of the investigations/analysis carried out. For instance this is the report posted on the 4th November 2021 on the reporting system, at the HPRA site.
Highlights from this update:
- Up to 26 October, a total of 15,705 reports of suspected side effects were notified to the HPRA. The number of COVID-19 vaccines administered as of that date was reported as 7,317,176, including 236,168 administered as a single dose, 3,571,557 as a first dose,
and 3,509,451 as a second dose.1
- Whilst not experienced by everyone, all vaccines have some side effects, the vast majority of which are mild to moderate in nature. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the benefits in preventing COVID-19 illness. Overall, the national reporting experience continues to support the favourable assessment that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks. An overview of national reports received is provided in this safety update on page 5.
- On 29 October, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published highlights from its monthly safety committee meeting, which included information on COVID-19 vaccines. Topics of interest are summarised on page 7 of this update.
- The next HPRA safety update is due for publication on 09 December.
There are no details on the adverse events experienced, no analysis or presentation of investigations carried out or conclusions drawn, except for an overall assurance that the benefits outweigh the risks. It is hardly adequate, particularly in light of the fact that the public are denied access to the accounts as reported by individuals in the Register, in contrast to other systems (such as in the UK and America).
We are attaching a draft letter to the Chair of the HPRA, Michael Donnelly, asking these questions, as it seems to us to be absolutely essential information for the public to have at this time. You might wish to send this letter via the email provided (the site advises that letters posted may not be received as many staff members work from home) if you are interested in answers to the points raised in the letter. We feel that the questions might be asked by as many people as possible in order to improve the reporting system.
The following people constitute the HPRA Authority, Michael Donnelly, Chair.
Dr Joe Collins, Mr David Holohan, Mr Brian Jones, Dr Elizabeth Keane, Dr Paula Kilbane, Dr Richard Quinlan, Professor Richard Reilly.
This letter might go to any or all of these people,
at the HPRA (Health Products Regulatory Authority)
Draft Letter:
Mr Michael Donnelly,
Kevin O’Malley House,
Block A,
Earlsfort Centre,
Earlsfort Terrace,
Dublin 2.
Email info@hpra.ie
Dear Sir,
I require the following information regarding the HPRA Vaccine Injury Reporting system as a matter of urgency, concerning matters of considerable public importance.
Public access to the HPRA Vaccine Injuries Reporting System Register:
Can you clarify as to whether vaccine injury reports logged on the Register for Vaccine Injuries, as individually reported, are available to be viewed by the public? This does not seem to be the case, in contrast to the systems in the UK MHRA Yellow Card reporting system and the US VAERS reporting system, where the system in place allows for anonymised reporting by individuals, be they health professionals or member of the public, and the reports then made available to be viewed by the public in a transparent way, and as documents of public record.
If the register is not accessible to the Irish public in this way, please explain why exactly this information is inaccessible. This lack of information has the consequent effect of rendering informed consent difficult if not impossible in the context of a vaccine administered under an EUA approval only, still in trials, and without medium to long term effects as yet established.
Reporting requirements and advice given to medical professionals as to reporting of vaccine injuries to the Register:
Please confirm what advice is given to doctors, nurses and other frontline staff as to the reporting of vaccine injuries to the HPRA reporting system. It seems evident that actual injuries and adverse events suffered after receiving the covid-19 vaccines are now, and will be for some time, unknown, particularly in the context of a new vaccine, still in trial. Is it the case that these medical professionals are advised to report all injuries, arising conditions, conditions not suffered previously, pre-conditions deteriorating after vaccine administration and all medical emerg
encies occurring in an individual, after a recent or previous covid-19 vaccination? Are medical professionals advised by the HPRA and the HSE, where the patient raises a concern about vaccine correlation in reporting a medical issue, that the presentation should be reported?
Are medical staff advised to report all such matters on the basis that this vaccine is issued under an EUA (Emergency Authorised Use) approval only, is still in trials and lacks medium to long term data as to adverse events.
If medical professionals are not advised to report all injuries arising as above, which presentations are excluded and why are they excluded in the context of a vaccine without medium to long adverse effects yet established?
I require your urgent and specific replies to these questions. It is reported by members of the public that doctors and nurses are often unable to respond when asked by people presenting for treatment if a previously given covid-19 vaccine was connected to the injury or condition suffered. It seems common practice that a report will not be made to the HPRA reporting system where the injury or medical condition complained of is not acknowledged (because it is unknown) to be caused by the vaccine. This is regardless of the fact that causation cannot be proved or disproved without proper investigation, following a report to the Register for Vaccine Injuries created for this purpose.
What training and assistance is offered to medical professionals in the making of reports of adverse events following covid-19 vaccinations? It appears to be a laborious and time consuming process, difficult to navigate in the system provided. What importance is given to enabling reports to be made in an accessible and user friendly way, where these reports must be made if patient safety is to be maintained.
Are medical professionals being advised that causation between injury and vaccine cannot be ruled out unless and until a proper investigation is carried out on foot of a full and comprehensive report on the HPRA reporting system? IF not, why not? ie if potential vaccine related injuries are not being reported, how can the current safety and efficacy of the covid-19 vaccines, as they apply to the public in real time, be established?
Vaccine Injury Reports issuing from the HPRA:
Finally, you state on the HPRA website that you examine and report on registered vaccine adverse effects as reported, monthly. For instance, you report as follows on vaccine injuries on the 4th November 2021:
Highlights from this update:
- Up to 26 October, a total of 15,705 reports of suspected side effects were notified to the HPRA. The number of COVID-19 vaccines administered as of that date was reported as 7,317,176, including 236,168 administered as a single dose, 3,571,557 as a first dose, and 3,509,451 as a second dose.1
- Whilst not experienced by everyone, all vaccines have some side effects, the vast majority of which are mild to moderate in nature. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the benefits in preventing COVID-19 illness. Overall, the national reporting experience continues to support the favourable assessment that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks. An overview of national reports received is provided in this safety update on page 5.
- On 29 October, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published highlights from its monthly safety committee meeting, which included information on COVID-19 vaccines. Topics of interest are summarised on page 7 of this update.
- The next HPRA safety update is due for publication on 09 December.
Can you clarify as to how many of these injuries were reported deaths? How many related to myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, neurological injuries, heart attacks, strokes, menstrual problems, miscarriages, still births, Guillain Barre condition, Bells Palsy, and/or other categories? The complete lack of detail is a serious problem in this reporting, constituting a failure to make such information available to the public. This is particularly relevant where acces
s to the reports as logged to the Register are denied to the public.
I await your urgent response and you may treat this letter as a formal FOI request where relevant in releasing the information sought in this letter.
Your faithfully,.
REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO HOSPITALS FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT. We are receiving many urgent queries from people now being refused access to hospitals for medical treatment, whether on an emergency basis or for necessary and urgent treatment, where the refusal is based on vaccination status. Unfortunately this is becoming more common over recent days and weeks. It is important that people are aware of this situation in order to plan ahead, and to establish what the hospital access will be ahead of treatment, or to make other arrangements if this is possible. We attach a draft letter here for use if you are refused hospital access and medical care. Very often the refusal takes place where you present on an emergency basis and have no warning that you would require admission to a hospital, or treatment. We would suggest that you utilise the draft letter as soon as you can, where you are refused emergency care, or in advance where refusal of hospital access is established on your enquiry. It is important to register your objections/ refusal to accept these exclusions. You can PM us or make at contact via email on the above.

Hospital

Date Re:

Treatment at…………. Dear (Hospital Registrar) I have been informed that I can not/could not receive treatment for (state your condition) when I presented at/called to arrange for my treatment at (name hospital) The reason given was that I have not been vaccinated against Covid-19. The treatment I required was urgent/necessary to prevent a potentially dangerous deterioration in my health, with painful, frightening and potentially fatal outcomes where I was/would be left without necessary medical treatment. I have taken advice as to my position, confirming my understanding that the Covid-19 Vaccinations, as currently being administered, are administered under an Emergency Use Authorisation only, are still in trials, and without medium or long studies available as to adverse or other effects. Therefore these vaccinations are not mandatory, and informed consent is required on the part of any person to receive, or decline, the vaccinations. There is no lawful authority therefore, under the Health Acts 1947-2021, to refuse me essential treatment at a hospital for this reason. A refusal is unlawful and in breach of your obligation to treat me as a citizen entitled to necessary treatment, on the basis of my vaccination status. Furthermore, to discriminate in this manner between myself and another is in clear breach of the Equality Acts 2012- to 2015, and actionable as such under the Equality legislation. The demand by the hospital for information as to my vaccination status prior to admitting me is/was made in breach of Articles 6 & 9 the General Data Protection Regulations of 2018, and is actionable as such, and reportable to the Data Protection Commissioner for investigation. I am entitled to, and have the human right to, access health treatment in law and under the Irish Constitution. I refer to Article 40, conferring on all Irish citizens the right to life, in the context where my life is endangered by the refusal of an Irish hospital to treat me, on discriminatory grounds. Nor may I be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, under Article 3 of the Irish Constitution. To be denied treatment where I am clearly in pain, and/or in danger of a fatal outcome, constitutes degrading and inhumane treatment by (name hospital). The European Convention on Protection of Human Rights, as ratified by member states in the European Union, similarly protects my right to life and prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment, on a discriminatory basis regarding my vaccination status. The hospital is breach of statute, in breach of my constitutional rights and protections under the Irish Constitution, and my rights and protections under the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. The hospital is in breach of a duty of care to me as citizen, in need of such medical treatment. The hospital acts outside of its powers in seeking to exclude any patient on these grounds, and is clearly and absolutely
Responsible for any negative consequences to me in terms of my physical and mental health. I await an immediate confirmation that the hospital will admit me for treatment as it is obliged to do. You should note that I will instruct a solicitor to pursue any legal remedy open to me if I am not admitted for necessary treatment as a matter to urgency. I will in addition hold you liable for current and any further injury or deterioration in my condition, where you are persisting in your refusal to treat me. I await hearing from you and provide my email for your urgent response.

Yours faithfully,
COVID-19 VACCINATIONS AND PARENTAL CONSENT AS IT AFFECTS SCHOOL-GOING CHILDREN.

It has been discussed in the Media that antigen testing and COVID-19 vaccinations are planned as an acceptable strategy in keeping schools open over the winter months. We have posted recently on the subject of Antigen testing and how you might put the schools and Hiqa on notice of your position in this regard. The flagging of intentions as to Covid-19 interventions in the Media and the consequent introduction of the same measures on foot of Policy or Guidance from the HSE, seem to the preferred strategy by our Government in implementing Covid-19 measures. In effect, far reaching and EUA approved only medical procedures such as routine antigen testing and vaccinations organised through or in schools for children are then rolled out, without risk assessments made available to parents, or basic legal underpinning. Vaccinations are regularly rolled out in school settings. It is possible that schools will either provide the venue for Covid-19 vaccinations or will become involved in the registration for, or organisation of, Covid-19 vaccinations for children in other settings. Currently, Covid-19 vaccinations have been approved for 12 to 15 year olds by the EMA (European Medical Association) and the HSE in Ireland. This does not change the essential position that the vaccines are EUA approved only, are still in trial, and there are no medium to long studies available as to adverse effects. Therefore vaccinations cannot be mandated and can only proceed following Informed Consent. The FDA in America have now approved Covid-19 vaccinations for children in the 5-12 year age bracket and vaccinations have begun for these children. There is every likelihood that the EMA and the HSE in Ireland will follow suit in due course. Our schools should function as educators, in our view. Health matters regarding children are the business of the child's parents, to be decided on within the family in consultation with health care providers as consulted by them. Schools have assumed a role in the administration of various vaccinations to children in effect. There is a persuasive element in the role they play, in facilitating vaccinations, which may conflict with the urgent question of informed consent. There must be informed consent given before receiving an EUA vaccination. Informed consent requires full and transparent information to be given to the recipient as to vaccine ingredients and as to possible side effects. It requires reasonable access to studies and trials completed. Parents tend to assume that vaccinations administered through their children's school will be safe and that the necessity for informed consent by them as parents is not as relevant, or at least is not quite as urgent a question. This, it is becoming increasingly clear, may not be sufficient. Parents must involve themselves in the consent process to the extent that these vaccinations do not go ahead unless and until they, as parents, have given informed consent in writing . It seems reasonable to attribute a measure of legal liability for adverse events caused by vaccines to any schools facilitating vaccinations, particularly where there has been no informed consent given (or made possible) by a parent or a young person. The requirement for informed consent is all the more urgent where the vaccines are EUA approved only.The possibility of death or injury to children following vaccinations, however rare or unknown, make informed consent a grave responsibility indeed. Currently, older children in the 16-17 age bracket are regarded as having the capacity to consent to 'any surgical, medical or dental treatment' (believed to cover Covid-19 vaccinations) under the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act 1997. It is still open to a parent to challenge this if of the view that the young person does not have the capacity to make this decision, for whatever reason. You can make this case in a prior notice to the school where schools have involved themselves in the vaccine roll-out, asserting that
is a matter requiring consent by you as the parent or legal guardian to the proposed vaccination, under the circumstances. The courts can be involved where there is a dispute as to capacity. It is clear one way or another that older children are vulnerable to peer pressure and pressure from school sources, which may be profound. This places a responsibility on parents to insist that their older children must be in a position to give informed consent, based on full and transparent information regarding the vaccines, and based on their ability to process the information and to make a decision. Children in the 5-12 year age group cannot consent to these vaccinations. This is a matter for parental consent only. In the current climate of universal Covid-19 vaccine roll-outs however, the role of the parent and parental consent requires constant assertion. The World Health Organisation has described a policy of Implied Consent on its website regarding children, which refers in certain circumstances to consent to vaccinations that is implied, perhaps due to the child's presence in school on the vaccination date for instance, or on the failure of a parent to respond when the date and intention to vaccinate is given to them by email /letter (or even Whats APP, or text). Therefore, and in view of how these measures have been implemented without prior discussion with parents, with no risk assessments readily available to them, and often following media interviews by health officials and/or government Ministers, it may be prudent to advise the school of your position in advance. Particularly now, in advance of an approval for Covid-19 vaccinations in the 5 to 12 year old cohort. This notice of your position can be be re-sent regularly. Both parents, as legal guardians, have the right to consent or refuse a vaccination and the vaccination. should not go ahead if one parent does not consent. But it is well to remember that in the case of a dissenting parent, he or she should advise the school of his or her position in writing, as consent received from one parent will otherwise be taken as sufficient. And remember that if and when Covid - 19 vaccinations are approved for 5 to 12 year olds by the EMA and the HSE, they are still administered as EUA authorised vaccines, still in trials, still without studies as to medium to long term effects, and each vaccination requires informed consent. Approval in our post relates to roll out. The administration of vaccines to various cohorts is preceded by state and regulatory bodies ‘approval’ to be administered to the public, or cohorts of the public, in the context of a pandemic. None of the Covid-19 vaccines are fully approved except for Comirnaty ( approved by the FDA in America, from Pfizer and seemingly identical to the current EUA administered Pfizer vaccine. The provision of vaccines, at the end of trials and fully approved by the various regulatory bodies, affect the pharma companies’ indemnity shield). Comirnaty is not available, we are told, until 2025. It was approved in a very unclear process, giving the impression of being an Approved Covid-19 Vaccine, more easily mandated, but in fact has not completed the process as approved, and will not be available until at least 2025. The Covid-19 vaccine roll out for 5-12 year old in Ireland, when and if approved, will be approved as an EUA authorised vaccine only, it is not mandatory to be taken and parental consent is necessary before it can be administered to a child. The devil is in the detail! By email or letter:
Dear....

I wish to hereby put you on notice in this email/letter that I do not consent to any form of questioning or discussion with my child........concerning his/her Covid-19 vaccination status. This is a matter of private health information within our family, which is not to be discussed or to be raised at all, except with myself and..... as his/her parents. Should any question or any issue arise relating to Covid-19 vaccinations, I and only I (name both parents if desired) am to be consulted. Any action on the part of the
school disregarding this notice breaches the Data Protection Regulations of 2018, and is a clear overreach by the school and an intrusion into private family matters. I have taken legal advice in this regards and any such overreach is legally actionable as such. I am further putting you on notice that I am not consenting to a Covid-19 vaccination of my child in the school or in any arrangement through or organised by the school. (I am not consenting to vaccination of my 16/17 year old .......on the basis of his/her prior consent, through the agency of the school. I do not accept the he/she is competent to give informed consent to an EUA administered vaccination in or through the agency of the school) (Delete if not relevant) In this regard you will be aware that the Covid-19 vaccines are administered under an Emergency Use Authorisation only, are still in trial and without medium to long term studies as to adverse events. There are statistically significant adverse affects such as myocarditis and pericarditis already established. There are other side effects. This being the case, any assumption by the school of agency to arrange for, enquire about, or facilitate vaccination for my child(ren) renders them liable for any and all adverse outcomes suffered to him/her/them. I/we will hold you to be directly liable for any injury suffered by my child(ren) where this notice has been breached or ignored in any way whatsoever. Yours faithfully. ..................................................... The notice can be updated if and when vaccinations are formally approved for children from 5 to 12 years old. In the meanwhile your parental position has been registered. PM us if you need to discuss.
November 15, 2021 at 7:35 PM

 
Lawyers For Justice Ireland
 
 NEW LAW TO BE PASSED AUTHORISING PANDEMIC MEASURES IN IRELAND ON THE 16TH DECEMBER 2021.

We are now told that the cabinet have approved the drafting of a new law, combining all the emergency powers this government has conferred on itself, to be passed on the 16th December 2021.
A government spokesman confirms that the government wants one piece of primary legislation to "ensure that the current public health measures can remain in place and the state can react to the Pandemic’.

The existing Emergency legislation authorising the current measures was rolled over in February of this year, on the basis that an extension until February 2022 would be the last such extension. This was insisted on by some opposition TDs. The clear understanding being that all Emergency legislation would be at an end at that point. This proposed new law effectively circumvents that undertaking in that it replaces the existing legislation and authorises at last two further extensions with an undefined end date in terms of the duration of the legislation, and an undefined end date for the two proposed extensions of the powers legislated for. It seems clear that such sunset cases and time limited extensions are meaningless in any event, if the government can simply introduce fresh legislation, with further extension provisions, when they approach the end dates as originally specified.

There is no indication given to us that this new law won't legislate for additional restrictions to be added to the the current restrictions on fundamental human rights such as freedom of movement, the right to free speech, the right to work, and to make personal health decisions.
We are aware and mindful of the current parliamentary and public resistance towards the bill introduced in Australia by Premier Dan Andrews conferring powers on the premier personally, which are far reaching and essentially authoritarian. The Australian bill as originally proposed seeks to confer powers on the Victorian Premier and him alone to declare a pandemic and to impose whatever measures he personally deems necessary in that instance.

The glaring truth with Emergency laws brought in across the world in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is that they have all been extended, without transparent or convincing risk assessment, and with little or no normal parliamentary debate as to legality, or justification of the measures thereby imposed.

It is undeniable that these emergency laws are introduced, extended, and expanded in effect, in lockstep across Europe and the rest of the world.

Currently, we watch the extraordinary situation as it unfolds in Austria where the unvaccinated are locked down (now extended to the vaccinated) and mandatory vaccinations imposed from February 2022.

There are urgent questions to be asked of our public representatives now as to what measures this proposed new law will authorise. (rather than a day or so before this legislation is put before the Dail, when a token resistance is expressed on the part of a limited group of TDs while the majority are silent, going on recent experience).
These questions are urgent and specific. We cannot tolerate vague reassurances and unsupported justifications, as has been given previously, for draconian measures and far reaching powers.

It is open to each and every one of us to email, lobby, or write to our local TD's requiring urgent answers to the following questions:

1.What authority exactly is the government assuming in enacting this proposed legislation and from where is such authority derived, particularly in light of the said undertaking given to in the Dail to end all extensions of the previous Emergency legislation in February 2022.

2. Exactly what powers and what additional powers are the Taoiseach and the cabinet conferring on themselves under this proposed legislation?
3. What pandemic measures and impositions are proposed under this new law, in addition to the existing measures imposed on the public, in the area of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports mandates, test and trace requirements and quarantine measures.

4. Does the law propose to mandate any or all of the following:
a. Lockdowns for unvaccinated people, whether the definition includes those people declining the first and second vaccines or those refusing the “Booster”.

b. Mandatory vaccinations in any context.

c. Mandatory quarantine for people testing positive for Covid-19 on PCR tests, or unvaccinated people (as defined above), in quarantine camps.

d. Provisions allowing the Minster to place additional or further restrictions on the public, as he sees fit? Such additional or further restrictions to be undefined in the legislation?

e. Quarantine camps in Ireland, and are there any such designated quarantine camps in Ireland at the moment?

These measures are not currently mandated in the existing legislation, guidances, and policies in place but we cannot assume the they will not be introduced via this new legislation or thereafter, particularly in view of the measures now being imposed in Europe and in Australia. And in view of the way in which the vaccine passport requirement, for instance, was firstly introduced for pubs and restaurants only, by legislation, and its use then extended to cinemas, theatres and many other venues on foot of various Guidances and Policies issued by the HSE in Ireland.

Finally, will there be risk/ benefit assessments carried out by the government and presented for the consideration of the people and for the consideration of Dail, to justify any and all of the pandemic measures included in the proposed legislation. Will the provenance of any such risk/benefit assessments be clearly outlined? Will there be risk/benefit assessments which are thorough, legitimate, transparent
and available to the public before this law is debated?

It is an unfortunate reality that far reaching measures, impacting in a draconian and profound manner on the public at large, have been introduced over the past nineteen months by degree and without any thorough going or transparent risk assessment, and thereafter becoming permanent in effect.

We must not be fobbed off by vague references to this proposed new legislation being merely "Umbrella" Legislation.

Now is the time for the hard questions.
Lawyers For Justice Ireland
 
 NEW LAW TO BE PASSED AUTHORISING PANDEMIC MEASURES IN IRELAND ON THE 16TH DECEMBER 2021.

We are now told that the cabinet have approved the drafting of a new law, combining all the emergency powers this government has conferred on itself, to be passed on the 16th December 2021.
A government spokesman confirms that the government wants one piece of primary legislation to "ensure that the current public health measures can remain in place and the state can react to the Pandemic’.

The existing Emergency legislation authorising the current measures was rolled over in February of this year, on the basis that an extension until February 2022 would be the last such extension. This was insisted on by some opposition TDs. The clear understanding being that all Emergency legislation would be at an end at that point. This proposed new law effectively circumvents that undertaking in that it replaces the existing legislation and authorises at last two further extensions with an undefined end date in terms of the duration of the legislation, and an undefined end date for the two proposed extensions of the powers legislated for. It seems clear that such sunset cases and time limited extensions are meaningless in any event, if the government can simply introduce fresh legislation, with further extension provisions, when they approach the end dates as originally specified.

There is no indication given to us that this new law won't legislate for additional restrictions to be added to the the current restrictions on fundamental human rights such as freedom of movement, the right to free speech, the right to work, and to make personal health decisions.
We are aware and mindful of the current parliamentary and public resistance towards the bill introduced in Australia by Premier Dan Andrews conferring powers on the premier personally, which are far reaching and essentially authoritarian. The Australian bill as originally proposed seeks to confer powers on the Victorian Premier and him alone to declare a pandemic and to impose whatever measures he personally deems necessary in that instance.

The glaring truth with Emergency laws brought in across the world in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is that they have all been extended, without transparent or convincing risk assessment, and with little or no normal parliamentary debate as to legality, or justification of the measures thereby imposed.

It is undeniable that these emergency laws are introduced, extended, and expanded in effect, in lockstep across Europe and the rest of the world.

Currently, we watch the extraordinary situation as it unfolds in Austria where the unvaccinated are locked down (now extended to the vaccinated) and mandatory vaccinations imposed from February 2022.

There are urgent questions to be asked of our public representatives now as to what measures this proposed new law will authorise. (rather than a day or so before this legislation is put before the Dail, when a token resistance is expressed on the part of a limited group of TDs while the majority are silent, going on recent experience).
These questions are urgent and specific. We cannot tolerate vague reassurances and unsupported justifications, as has been given previously, for draconian measures and far reaching powers.

It is open to each and every one of us to email, lobby, or write to our local TD's requiring urgent answers to the following questions:

1.What authority exactly is the government assuming in enacting this proposed legislation and from where is such authority derived, particularly in light of the said undertaking given to in the Dail to end all extensions of the previous Emergency legislation in February 2022.

2. Exactly what powers and what additional powers are the Taoiseach and the cabinet conferring on themselves under this proposed legislation?
3. What pandemic measures and impositions are proposed under this new law, in addition to the existing measures imposed on the public, in the area of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports mandates, test and trace requirements and quarantine measures.

4. Does the law propose to mandate any or all of the following:
a. Lockdowns for unvaccinated people, whether the definition includes those people declining the first and second vaccines or those refusing the “Booster”.

b. Mandatory vaccinations in any context.

c. Mandatory quarantine for people testing positive for Covid-19 on PCR tests, or unvaccinated people (as defined above), in quarantine camps.

d. Provisions allowing the Minster to place additional or further restrictions on the public, as he sees fit? Such additional or further restrictions to be undefined in the legislation?

e. Quarantine camps in Ireland, and are there any such designated quarantine camps in Ireland at the moment?

These measures are not currently mandated in the existing legislation, guidances, and policies in place but we cannot assume the they will not be introduced via this new legislation or thereafter, particularly in view of the measures now being imposed in Europe and in Australia. And in view of the way in which the vaccine passport requirement, for instance, was firstly introduced for pubs and restaurants by Regulation and its use then extended to Cinemas, Theatres and many other venues on foot of various Guidances and Policies issues by the HSE in Ireland.

Finally, will there be risk/ benefit assessments carried out by the government and presented for the consideration of the people and for the consideration of Dail, to justify any and all of the pandemic measures included in the proposed legislation. Will the provenance of any such risk/benefit assessments be clearly outlined? Will there be risk/benefit assessments which are thorough, legitimate, transparent
and available to the public before this law is debated?

It is an unfortunate reality that far reaching measures, impacting in a draconian and profound manner on the public at large, have been introduced over the past nineteen months by degree and without any thorough going or transparent risk assessment, and thereafter becoming permanent in effect.

We must not be fobbed off by vague references to this proposed new legislation being merely "Umbrella" Legislation.

Now is the time for the hard questions.
Lawyers For Justice Ireland


NEW LAW TO BE PASSED AUTHORISING PANDEMIC MEASURES IN IRELAND ON THE 16TH DECEMBER 2021.

We are now told that the cabinet have approved the drafting of a new law, combining all the emergency powers this government has conferred on itself, to be passed on the 16th December 2021.
A government spokesman confirms that the government wants one piece of primary legislation to "ensure that the current public health measures can remain in place and the state can react to the Pandemic’.

The existing Emergency legislation authorising the current measures was rolled over in February of this year, on the basis that an extension until February 2022 would be the last such extension. This was insisted on by some opposition TDs. The clear understanding being that all Emergency legislation would be at an end at that point. This proposed new law effectively circumvents that undertaking in that it replaces the existing legislation and authorises at last two further extensions with an undefined end date in terms of the duration of the legislation, and an undefined end date for the two proposed extensions of the powers legislated for. It seems clear that such sunset cases and time limited extensions are meaningless in any event, if the government can simply introduce fresh legislation, with further extension provisions, when they approach the end dates as originally specified.

There is no indication given to us that this new law won't legislate for additional restrictions to be added to the the current restrictions on fundamental human rights such as freedom of movement, the right to free speech, the right to work, and to make personal health decisions.
We are aware and mindful of the current parliamentary and public resistance towards the bill introduced in Australia by Premier Dan Andrews conferring powers on the premier personally, which are far reaching and essentially authoritarian. The Australian bill as originally proposed seeks to confer powers on the Victorian Premier and him alone to declare a pandemic and to impose whatever measures he personally deems necessary in that instance.

The glaring truth with Emergency laws brought in across the world in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is that they have all been extended, without transparent or convincing risk assessment, and with little or no normal parliamentary debate as to legality, or justification of the measures thereby imposed.

It is undeniable that these emergency laws are introduced, extended, and expanded in effect, in lockstep across Europe and the rest of the world.

Currently, we watch the extraordinary situation as it unfolds in Austria where the unvaccinated are locked down (now extended to the vaccinated) and mandatory vaccinations imposed from February 2022.

There are urgent questions to be asked of our public representatives now as to what measures this proposed new law will authorise. (rather than a day or so before this legislation is put before the Dail, when a token resistance is expressed on the part of a limited group of TDs while the majority are silent, going on recent experience).
These questions are urgent and specific. We cannot tolerate vague reassurances and unsupported justifications, as has been given previously, for draconian measures and far reaching powers.

It is open to each and every one of us to email, lobby, or write to our local TD's requiring urgent answers to the following questions:

1.What authority exactly is the government assuming in enacting this proposed legislation and from where is such authority derived, particularly in light of the said undertaking given to in the Dail to end all extensions of the previous Emergency legislation in February 2022.

2. Exactly what powers and what additional powers are the Taoiseach and the cabinet conferring on themselves under this proposed legislation?
3. What pandemic measures and impositions are proposed under this new law, in addition to the existing measures imposed on the public, in the area of lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports mandates, test and trace requirements and quarantine measures.

4. Does the law propose to mandate any or all of the following:
a. Lockdowns for unvaccinated people, whether the definition includes those people declining the first and second vaccines or those refusing the “Booster”.

b. Mandatory vaccinations in any context.

c. Mandatory quarantine for people testing positive for Covid-19 on PCR tests, or unvaccinated people (as defined above), in quarantine camps.

d. Provisions allowing the Minster to place additional or further restrictions on the public, as he sees fit? Such additional or further restrictions to be undefined in the legislation?

e. Quarantine camps in Ireland, and are there any such designated quarantine camps in Ireland at the moment?

These measures are not currently mandated in the existing legislation, guidances, and policies in place but we cannot assume the they will not be introduced via this new legislation or thereafter, particularly in view of the measures now being imposed in Europe and in Australia. And in view of the way in which the vaccine passport requirement, for instance, was firstly introduced for pubs and restaurants only, by legislation, and its use then extended to cinemas, theatres and many other venues on foot of various Guidances and Policies issues by the HSE in Ireland.

Finally, will there be risk/ benefit assessments carried out by the government and presented for the consideration of the people and for the consideration of Dail, to justify any and all of the pandemic measures included in the proposed legislation. Will the provenance of any such risk/benefit assessments be clearly outlined? Will there be risk/benefit assessments which are thorough, legitimate, transparent
and available to the public before this law is debated?

It is an unfortunate reality that far reaching measures, impacting in a draconian and profound manner on the public at large, have been introduced over the past nineteen months by degree and without any thorough going or transparent risk assessment, and thereafter becoming permanent in effect.

We must not be fobbed off by vague references to this proposed new legislation being merely "Umbrella" Legislation.

Now is the time for the hard questions.