top of page
Work Desk


A very Happy New Year to you from Informed Consent Matters, and we hope you've enjoyed a relaxing festive season, undisrupted by the waves of illness that seem to have plagued many households.


The Telegraph newspaper reported that, this year, "everyone" would be getting "Covid for Christmas", and sadly, an increased illness burden was something that was all too predictable this winter - and something that Informed Consent Matters did predict.


This is not because we possess any particular prophetic abilities, but rather, because the inevitable consequence of the mass poisoning of a population is mass illness.


For the past two years, Informed Consent Matters has been warning of the cumulative health risks of the Covid vaccines, and other seasonal injections, such as the flu vaccine.


We cautioned back in July that the planned extension of the children's flu nasal spray programme, to include three million additional children, would inevitably lead to more illness amongst children and their families, whilst the progressive risks of repeat Covid vaccines are well documented.


The Covid and flu vaccination programmes ran simultaneously throughout the last quarter of 2023 (with many receiving these injections at the same time, despite the known increased risks associated with joint administration), and officially concluded on December 15th. That means it was predictable that poor health would peak around Christmas time, and in the subsequent weeks, as the injections took full effect.


Please note the latest Covid booster has not been tested on any human beings at all. Therefore, there is no known data on what the short, medium, or long-term effects on health might be. 


Whilst the "official" explanation for the current increased burden of illness in the population points to a "new Covid variant", there is no evidence to support this claim, given that a) testing methods for Covid are ineffective and unreliable, and b) those who are completely unvaccinated are reporting far less illness, and less severe illness, than those who have received repeat vaccinations (simply speak to your unvaccinated versus vaccinated family and friends to confirm this). 


It is our contention at Informed Consent Matters that this "new variant" (e.g., the poor health being experienced by the many-times vaccinated) is in fact a planned and orchestrated attack on the population, devised by high-level social engineers, who wish to increase their dominance and control over the population.


Sounds far-fetched?


It is well-documented throughout history that governments use fear to control populations, and that they are certainly not above intentionally inducing illness in order to maximise fear - see the British government's extensive history of using biological and chemical warfare.


Whilst evidence clearly shows there was no rise in serious illness in 2020 (rather, respiratory illnesses that would in any other year have been labelled flu or pneumonia, were instead labelled "Covid"), this year, there is a demonstrable increase in serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths, which evidence appears to clearly suggest, has been intentionally created and induced via injection. 


The severity of this situation is being exacerbated further by the planned junior doctors' strike - the largest in NHS history - which is set to commence tomorrow, January 3rd, and to last for six days. Inevitably, this strike action - involving around half of all working doctors - means that an already overburdened and struggling NHS will hit crisis point, with the strike conveniently timed to conclude just as parliament returns to session the week commencing January 8th. 


We can therefore expect one of the first orders of business ministers address to be "the new health crisis" - and what action they will take to contain it. 


Given the recent "Covid enquiry" concluded that the UK's pandemic response in 2020 was insufficient as it was too slow and too lax, our concern at Informed Consent Matters is that 2020 and 2021 were merely "test runs" for something much more severe. We fear that the world's governments will attempt to plunge us into even more draconian lockdowns and authoritarian mandates this year, in a bid to further curtail our freedoms and increase their own power - all under the guise of supposedly "protecting our health".


Yet it is not the job of governments to "protect our health". It is their job to protect our rights - so that we are able to freely choose what measures we take to protect our health, as well as exercising similar autonomy in all other aspects of our lives. 


As such - and just as we did throughout "pandemic 1" - Informed Consent Matters will vigorously oppose any suggestion of lockdowns or other state-imposed restrictions, by challenging unlawful and immoral mandates; holding corrupt authority to account; and ensuring you have the resources and information you need to continue to make the right life choices for you - knowledgeably, confidently, and freely.


Please take a few minutes to explore our website, and share our resources with your family and friends (including our guide to detoxing from Covid vaccines), to help us spread the word that, when it comes to all important life choices, informed consent really does matter.



Thanks for reading. Informed Consent Matters is a completely independent health resource with no corporate or pharmaceutical funding, meaning your support is what powers this resource to keep going.


If you would like to support our work, please consider making a secure donation via Buy Me A Coffee or By direct bank transfer.


Thank you for your invaluable support in spreading the vital message that informed consent really does matter.

1,034 views


(For previous correspondence, please see here.)


Dear Robert Bachelor,


We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 30th October 2023.


We note that, in this as in all previous correspondence, you have failed to answer the five critical questions we put to you regarding the children’s flu vaccine that your teams have been administering throughout Kirklees since September 1st.


You contend that we should put our queries to (bodies who you deem to be) “the relevant authorities”, yet none of these bodies are directly responsible for administering these vaccines to children: you are.


Therefore, it is incumbent on you to ensure that you are suitably equipped to answer the simple, yet vital, questions we put to you, rather than attempting to “pass the buck” because you cannot answer them.


The fact that you cannot answer our questions (which will be reproduced, once again, at the end of this letter), indicts you as derelict in your responsibilities to safeguard the children of Kirklees, and to seek fully informed consent from them and their families when inviting them to receive a vaccination.


Your point, therefore, that “some older children may be considered sufficiently mature” to consent to vaccination without their parents’ agreement, is moot, since nobody can provide valid consent unless and until they have received all pertinent information - regardless of how “mature” a complete stranger considers them to be.


In addition, please note that it is incredibly audacious to assert that a schools’ immunisation team, who have never met a child before and have no compelling information about their personality, characteristics, or background, are in a superior position to judge a child’s “maturity”, to the child’s own parents.


This approach is an exploitative misapplication of the Gillick Competence ruling, originally instituted to protect children from highly vulnerable backgrounds, such as those in care, from risking underage pregnancy, by allowing them to acquire contraceptives without requiring their parents’ permission.


This ruling was never meant to be weaponised by the pharmaceutical industry, to enable it and its agents to bully underage minors into receiving unnecessary and risky medical products which their parents have already sensibly declined – which is precisely how Gillick competency is applied in schools, and we at Informed Consent Matters know of many children coerced into receiving vaccinations that neither they nor their families wished them to receive. The schools in question typically avoid legal repercussions from furious families by invoking Gillick competency and claiming the child consented.


This claim, however, is in stark contrast to all the other heavyweight and robust legislation we have in this country to protect children from harm and abuse. The reason we have age-based consent laws to safeguard children is that they are highly vulnerable to coercion from older, more powerful people, so we therefore declare that a child cannot legally “consent” to potentially life-altering decisions until they are at least 16. This is precisely why all sex involving under-16s is rape, regardless of whether the other party claims the child assented to this activity: because a child cannot legitimately consent, as it is too easy for an adult to manipulate a child into agreeing to something that is not in their interests.


Therefore, we preclude children from ever being in this position by making it clear that they are unable to offer legally valid consent until they are at least 16.


No responsible or ethical adult would so egregiously flout these critical social standards by deviously exploiting a ruling meant to protect children, as the Gillick competency ruling is meant to do, and using it instead to coerce, manipulate, and potentially harm them - and it appears increasingly clear that this is exactly what the mass administration of the nasal flu vaccine has done.


You will note that, in a previous correspondence to you of September 14th, we cautioned that we were deeply concerned about the advent of “a new pandemic”, one seen to disproportionately affect children, that would originate from the flu spray.


We said:

We are deeply concerned - and have expressed our concerns to multiple members of Kirklees Council - that the flu nasal spray may trigger a wave of ill health in children, for the reasons we elucidated upon in our original letter (which, as we informed you at the time, is a public, open letter, shared on our resource and with our several thousand subscribers).


We are sure it has not escaped your attention that, in recent weeks, news vehicles across the world have been reporting a “mystery new illness” in children, that was first detected in China and has now made its way to Europe.



A surge in respiratory illnesses in China, particularly among children, has reportedly swamped paediatric units in city hospitals… Many hospital wards are full, according to state and other media reports in China. The Global Times reported on Tuesday that the Beijing Children’s hospital was receiving up to 9,378 patients a day and had been at full capacity during the past two months.”


We warned you that this was the likely outcome of the dangerous and inadequately tested reformulated Fluenz Tetra spray being disseminated in schools around the world; that this concoction is known to create and spread illness amongst children - and now, it appears, our cautions were all too accurate.


The law states that it is the administrators of medical products that are responsible for adequately conveying possible risk factors to patients before applying them, and not any “authorities” that may have recommended these products, or provided the funding for their mass application.


Your teams, and not any external “authorities”, are the individuals who applied these products to children without adequately disclosing the full risk profile to them and their families. Therefore, if we do see a wave of illness sweeping through the schools of Kirklees, of the type that is now becoming rampant elsewhere, we at Informed Consent Matters – including our many supporters around the world - expect a full investigation to be conducted into the possible links between the administering of the flu spray, and the commencement of this illness, including identifying the specific individuals who administered the product, whilst failing to fulfil their ethical and legal duties of seeking fully informed consent.


In closing, here, once again, are the five crucial questions your teams have been unable to answer:


1. What is the absolute (not relative) risk reduction of the flu spray?


2. How many children has the new reformulated Fluenz Tetra spray been tested on?


3. How long were these children studied for?


4. Was the vaccine tested in clinical trials against an inert saline placebo, or non-inert substances containing biologically active ingredients?


5. What controls have been put in place to mitigate the possibility of the live flu nasal spray prompting antibody dependent enhancement - ADE - in children who may have developed this syndrome from the COVID-19 vaccines that many school-aged children have received?

Yours faithfully,


Miriam Finch


Mark Finch


Founders


Informed Consent Matters



Thanks for reading. Informed Consent Matters is a completely independent health resource with no corporate or pharmaceutical funding, meaning your support is what powers this resource to keep going.


If you would like to support our work, please consider:


Making a purchase from our awareness-raising shop or;


Making a secure donation via Buy Me A Coffee or by direct bank transfer,


Thank you for your invaluable support in spreading the vital message that informed consent really does matter.

529 views


(For previous correspondence, please see here.)

Dear Locala,

On the 19h September, you wrote to us to address our request for information relating to ensuring the provision of fully informed consent when administering vaccinations to children.

You informed us you were treating this request as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, and therefore, it would be processed through that legislative framework. As such, you informed us that addressing our request could take up to 20 working days or more.

It was our hope that you were merely obliged to make such a statement as per the tenets of the FOI framework, because if it was rather the case that it would take you 20 days or more to source the information requested because you did not immediately have it, then clearly this would indicate that you are not in a position to fulfil your obligations of seeking fully informed consent and hence should halt your vaccination programme immediately.

It has now been 25 working days (more than a full calendar month) since you wrote to us, and you have since declined to send any further update or information.

We can only conclude therefore that you are either unable to answer the questions we asked, or are unwilling to, since the answers would reflect that the vaccines your teams have been administering to children are neither adequately safety tested nor medically necessary.

To reiterate, these are the five questions we put to you (first sent on September 7th):

1. What is the absolute (not relative) risk reduction of the flu spray?

2. How many children has the new reformulated Fluenz Tetra spray been tested on?

3. How long were these children studied for?

4. Was the vaccine tested in clinical trials against an inert saline placebo, or non-inert substances containing biologically active ingredients?

5. What controls have been put in place to mitigate the possibility of the live flu nasal spray prompting antibody dependent enhancement - ADE - in children who may have developed this syndrome from the COVID-19 vaccines that many school-aged children have received? Could you please clarify a) whether and b) when you intend to provide us with the answers?

Yours faithfully,

Miriam Finch

Mark Finch

Founders Informed Consent Matters www.informedconsentmatters.co.uk


Thanks for reading. Informed Consent Matters is a completely independent health resource with no corporate or pharmaceutical funding, meaning your support is what powers this resource to keep going.


If you would like to support our work, please consider:


Making a purchase from our awareness-raising shop or;


Making a secure donation via Buy Me A Coffee or by direct bank transfer,


Thank you for your invaluable support in spreading the vital message that informed consent really does matter.

501 views
bottom of page