top of page
  • mirifinch

Latest correspondence with local schools' immunisation team

(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


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.


Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page