Take Back Control

by PJH Law Solicitors

Take Back Control

by PJH Law Solicitors
PJH Law Solicitors
Case Owner
I'm Dr Sam White. I was suspended by the NHS for speaking out about informed consent, the safety of the vaccine and other safe and effective alternative treatments.
19
days to go
£151,955
pledged of £150,000 stretch target from 4,706 pledges
Pledge now
PJH Law Solicitors
Case Owner
I'm Dr Sam White. I was suspended by the NHS for speaking out about informed consent, the safety of the vaccine and other safe and effective alternative treatments.
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: Dec. 6, 2021

Free Speech Wins

Firstly Dr Sam would like to thank you for your incredible support and messages.

On 3 December 2021 Dr Sam White's social media ban imposed by the Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service [MPTS…

Read more

My body is sovereign. So is your's. No government has the right to penalise me or you for not having medical treatment. That's wrong, unethical and against the Law.

Let's take back control of our body from the government.

I am Dr Sam White suspended by the NHS for raising concerns about the safety of the vaccine and informed consent.

 I am very concerned about the plan to vaccinate children. 

One child's vaccine injury or death is one too many.

A summary of my case is here. The full version is here.

The case is about informed consent.  Vaccine Passports breach domestic law and international law in our view. 

People are having a vaccine to obtain a vaccine passport, not out of clinical need. That's wrong.

We need your help. 

Whether you are vaccinated or not, it is in everyone’s interests to have the right to say no to any treatment without penalty. 

You have the right to the best information. You have the right to access safe and effective alternatives including your immune system.

We have 4 objectives:

  • To have the vaccine passport declared unlawful.
  • To halt the vaccine roll out to allow a thorough review of all potential serious adverse events.
  • To lift my suspension.
  • If the Police do not take any action, to start private criminal proceedings against the Right Honourable Matthew Hancock and others for formulating a public health policy based on an unfit for purpose diagnosis test and causing so much harm in so doing.

The money you donate will be used:

1. To assemble a team of QCs and Junior Barristers and lawyers to:

  • Give advice on options.
  • Draft applications.
  • Represent in court.
  • Prepare the cases for hearing.
  • Engage any other legal support needed to ensure the best chance of success.

2. To obtain expert and other witness evidence on:

  • PCR tests.
  • Trial design.
  • Efficacy of any safe alternatives.
  • Efficacy of masks.
  • Engage private investigators to carry out investigations into conflicts of interest and any other relevant issue.
  • Any other expert evidence Barristers advises us to obtain.

3. To obtain expert tests on:

  • Materials used in masks commonly supplied and used in NHS settings.
  • Obtain toxicity reports for prolonged mask wearing.
  • Obtain expert evidence of what materials are in the vaccines.
  • Any other expert reports Barristers advises us to obtain.

4. I need to buy an insurance policy to protect me from any adverse costs orders. An adverse costs order is where I lose a claim and the court orders me to pay the winner’s legal costs. These policies are very expensive.

These funds are needed urgently. 

We will be transparent and account for every penny spent.  

Any invoices for costs incurred will be published on www.pjhlaw.co.uk website.  

Any money donated which is not spent will be gifted to vaccine injury charities.

Any financial support you can offer, however small, is appreciated. 

This is not a battle we can afford to lose. It's your battle as much as mine.

Many thanks for your support.  

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 6

PJH Law Solicitors

Dec. 6, 2021

Free Speech Wins

Firstly Dr Sam would like to thank you for your incredible support and messages.

On 3 December 2021 Dr Sam White's social media ban imposed by the Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service [MPTS] Interim Orders Tribunal [IOT] was lifted by the High Court.

The ban imposed by the IOT prevented Dr Sam for making any comment on social media about "the pandemic and associated aspects."

The Judge found that the MPTS (the independent judicial arm of the GMC) breached Dr Sam White's human rights in the way they arrived at their decision. 

The judgment is here. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/White-v-GMC-judgment-031221.pdf

In particular the MPTS failed to apply the correct legal tests. The IOT's guidance did not refer to a Doctor's human right to freedom of expression.

The GMC cannot appeal as appeals against the IOT determinations are limited to the High Court only.

What Dr Sam said in his video which led to him appearing before the MPTS was supported by a wide body of medical opinion and clinical research.

As the Judge commented at paragraph 7 of the judgment, Dr Sam's witness statement ran to 124 pages and exhibits to the statement ran to over 600 pages.

The example the Judge used in his judgment was Dr Sam saying there was no evidence to support non-clinical masks in non-clinical settings. Misinformation? Risk to patients?

In free speech cases the Judge's role is to review whether rights of free expression have been breached or not. The Judge's role is not to form a view on the correctness of the position.

History will be the ultimate Judge. Did the GMC try to muzzle a Doctor who was voicing legitmate concerns about the handling of the pandemic?

 Nothing that Dr Sam warned against has been shown to be unfounded. In fact the opposite, Dr Sam's concerns about vaccine induced myocarditis and pericarditis voiced in his 2 July letter to Sir Simon Stevens now look very  prescient.

As the GMC is now required to pay Dr Sam's legal costs, there will be a welcome replenishment of the legal fund.

We have been managing the fund prudently and have funds available to launch further actions. We have issued a letter before action against the MHRA in relation to the vaccine launch.

Since judgment on 3 December 2021 we have reported a crime of serious misconduct in public office at Hammersmith Police Station on 20 December 2021 under crime reference number 6029675/21. Since that date we have submitted over 150 page witness statments and documents, and further documents will be delivered on 21 January 2022. 

Thank you for all your support.

Watch this space.




Update 5

PJH Law Solicitors

Nov. 25, 2021

Appeal against the IOT judgment

Judgment in the High Court appeal against the IOT determination is awaited. The appeal was heard on 4 November 2021.

The issue at stake was whether the Medical Tribunal Service had any legal right to impose the condition on Dr Sam that he was not allowed to post on social media about the pandemic.

There is alos further news from NHS improvement who have now referred Dr Sam to a hearing to determine whether any sort of disciplinary sanction should be placed on him for his video in June 2021.

This is despite NHS improvement previously lifting the suspension in July.

We have written in the strongest terms possible to NHS Improvement as they have proceeded to make the referral without any input from Dr Sam and whilst we await judgment on the appeal. NHS Improvement had emailed DR Sam using an old NHS email address and then proceeded to hear the case in his absence and dedeided to refer. 

Copied in to our email was Sir Graham Brady, Reiner Fuellmich and Robert F Kennedy Junior as well as other Doctors in the UK who have come out in support of Sam.

 

Update 4

PJH Law Solicitors

Nov. 25, 2021

Judicial Review

The Judicial Review on the self-isolation rules for unvaccinated passengers has been given permission on the papers to proceed to full hearing on one ground whether the rules discriminates agianst passengers and is proportionate.

This is the first Covid judicial review case that has been given permission on the papers.

The Judge has not expedited the case for hearing as there are other more urgent cases in the queue.

However the case should be heard sometime in the first quarter of 2022.

Update 3

PJH Law Solicitors

Oct. 5, 2021

Judicial Review letter before action on Travel Rules

We have sent a letter before action to Grant Shapps. The letter before action alleges that the travel rules are disproportionate, infringe on human rights, breach privacy and are discriminatory.

The challenge is related to the differential rules on vaccination status, with the unvaccinated having to self-isolate.

Does vaccination prevent transmission?

Are the prior infected but unvaccinated more immune than the vaccinated?

We will keep you posted.



Update 2

PJH Law Solicitors

Sept. 16, 2021

High Court - Administrative Court - Hearing Date

The High Court has listed Dr Sam White's appeal for 4 November 2021.

We will find out whether the hearing is in person at the High Court or over video in the week before 4 November 2021.

Update 1

PJH Law Solicitors

Sept. 14, 2021

High Court Appeal filed

We have filed an appeal against the Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service's determination and the conditions placed on Dr White’s practice that Dr Sam White should not be able to post on social media about the covid 19 pandemic and all "associated aspects" and that he should remove all posts.

The grounds of appeal are that Dr Sam White has a human right to express his opinion, that the MPTS has no jurisdiction to referee public debates on social media, and in any event all opinions expressed by Dr Sam White has a body of medical opinion to support those opinions.

The grounds of appeal are available to view here.

Freedom of expression is so important as it enables the public to take an informed view of material risks not only of covid but also of the vaccines. With the main stream media only articulating one side of the narrative it is imperative that clinicians are free to speak out and give opposing views.

No clinician should have their livelihood put at risk because they have spoken out.

We are separately taking advice from Counsel on a data protection issue raised by the GMC investigation and that could lead to further legal action.

We have been prudent with the funds raised and sums spent are available to view here. 

Approximately £9,000 plus vat has been spent.

With Judicial Reviews under way elsewhere for both children's vaccination and the care home workers' regulations, we are reviewing options to deploy the fighting fund for maximum impact.

One option under consideration is to test the care home worker's vaccine mandate by way of an application for a High Court declaration that the regulations are complied with by a self-certified exemption. Any such application, if successful, would assist any worker or employee facing an employer with a no jab, no job policy including NHS workers.

Dr White has recently appeared in an interview with Dr Reiner Fullmich and we have reached out to lawyers in other jurisdictions to share evidence for a potential criminal prosecution.

Of course the default position if the funds are not spent is that any sums not spent on legal costs will be donated to a vaccine injury charity. 

    There are no public comments on this case page.