Forced Vaccinations On Our Loved Ones

by Tom's Mother

Forced Vaccinations On Our Loved Ones

by Tom's Mother
Tom's Mother
Case Owner
My boy, Tom, was born with severe learning difficulties and a heart condition. Age 22 but with mental age of about 18 months, I care for Tom as a single parent. I love him with all my heart.
21
days to go
£51,699
pledged of £80,000 stretch target from 1566 pledges
Pledge now
Tom's Mother
Case Owner
My boy, Tom, was born with severe learning difficulties and a heart condition. Age 22 but with mental age of about 18 months, I care for Tom as a single parent. I love him with all my heart.
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: April 6, 2024

Hearing Date is Set

Following the last hearing in February, the hearing has been set for two days over 4th and 5th July 2024.  

At the February hearing, the Judge had said he would provide his written decision follo…

Read more

Our 'special needs' loved ones cannot make a decision for themselves but we are here....the mothers and fathers and families of these special people.

We have always been here...loving them, caring for them and making the healthcare decisions for them, all of their lives.

So...why can the government take full control of those decisions once your child is 18?

HAPPENING NOW!

My family is one of the many across the country being taken to Court by the Healthcare Authorities to inject our children with an experimental Covid-19 injection against our wishes. This is because they can, just because our children are over the age of 18.

The government can decide what they feel is best for your child and the Courts implement their wishes.

My fight, presently, is for my son who is 22.  He has severe learning difficulties but otherwise is a fit and very well young man. He lives with me, his mother. He has had Covid-19 and handled it like the average person and he now has natural immunity and natural antibodies, which is very good news!

This Fight

This fight is for our very precious, special sons and daughters and for all future generations who will ultimately find themselves in the same position.

Tom is a happy adult but has the mental capacity of an 18 month old.  He lives alone with his mother who has looked after his every need including his health decisions.  He is now being forced to be vaccinated against his mother's wishes and the warnings of many doctors.  This cannot be right.  No one has suggested she is an unfit mother, that Tom is in dire danger or that his mother's views are unreasonable. Vaccination is being forced on them because there are differing opinions about the vaccine and the Court is choosing and agreeing to enforce the latest government recommendation.

Tom will be injected within days unless the Court agrees to overturn this decision. 

Instructed by the solicitors for Tom's mother is leading religious and human rights barrister, Paul Diamond

Via this campaign, Tom's mother is raising funds for her legal costs incurred to date and to allow her to continue in applications to Court and on appeal.  She may have to appeal again up to the Supreme Court because Tom's case is raising a fundamental question: 

In the absence of abuse or irrational and unreasonable decision making, what right does the Court or the State have to reach into the family home and override reasonable decisions of parents and family? 

Please contribute and share this page now!  Please help.

Meet Tom

Tom is 22 and is a very happy and loving young man. He enjoys being with animals, listening to music, looking at books, dancing and being out and about meeting people.

Family is most important to him. He gives joy to all that meet him. He lives off love and is loved so very much.

Tom was born with a chromosome imbalance, partial Trisomy 13, which caused severe learning difficulties and a heart condition being Tetralogy of Fallot. He had full corrective heart surgery at the age of one. 

He takes no medications and is a fit and healthy, strong young man.

Getting to this age has exceeded the expectations of the medical profession, which is a credit to his mother. This is the family unit: Tom is the focus of her life and she is the focus of his. She has raised him with love and dedication and has been responsible for all his health decisions including Tom receiving all his childhood vaccinations and the flu vaccine each year.  She is no "anti-vaxxer", as the Judge in Court said she might be!

Meet the NHS Authority 

During the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS forgot about Tom.  He was not placed on any priority list as a vulnerable person, which meant Tom’s mother received no ‘priority shopping’ and could not receive deliveries but had to rely on neighbours. There was also no phone call of concern or an offer of support from Social Services.

But once the Covid-19 vaccination was available, Tom was called to receive it.

After detailed research of medical issues, Tom’s mother was extremely concerned about the vaccination and how it could impact on Tom’s good health, in particular his heart.  It is acknowledged in the Healthcare Guidance notes that Myocarditis (heart inflammation) is a side effect of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccination.  

As Tom has no speech, he cannot communicate symptoms to his mother, ‘mum my heart is racing, mum I can’t breath properly...’  His mother says she would have to live each day with ‘the not knowing of what could be happening to Tom’.  

Having no speech, being unable to explain how he is feeling, would be detrimental to early intervention of medical assistance should it be required.  If he had Covid, with flu like symptoms, these would immediately be recognised by his mother.

Tom has previously had Covid-19.  A blood test shows that he has natural antibodies/immunity. Tom’s mother is happy for him to receive non invasive medications (which are now available to treat Covid-19) should he become unwell from COVID-19. 

When using medication there is an element of control.  Medication can be stopped should he have an adverse reaction.  Once he has received the mRNA vaccination, however, it is irreversible and there is nothing that can be done.

Despite these concerns, the Medical Authorities (Clinical Commissioning Group) have applied to the Court of Protection for an Order for Tom to have the vaccination against his mother’s wishes.

Meet the Court

The Court’s view is that, although Tom has a mental age of a child and is wholly dependent on his mother to do everything for him, at age 18 he is an adult.

From the age of 18, the mother is no longer considered to be the best person to know what is in her sons ‘best interests’. Instead he is regarded, like any other adult, as having full autonomy - the ability to make his own decision about his body and his medical treatments.

To ensure his autonomy, the Court takes over and decides how he would exercise that autonomy in Tom’s ‘best interests’.

The reality of this, for Tom and anyone like him, becomes that the Court sides with the government authorities. The mother effectively becomes a bystander at the Court.

How does that happen?  The Court has reasoned that:

  • If Tom resists the Covid-19 vaccination that will be evidence that he does not want the mRNA product in his body but, if he does not resist, it is evidence that he wants the mRNA product in his body.
  • Even though Tom is unable to  understand or express any views on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, he would want to have the injection for the good of others.   This altruism, the Court imagines, would override any consideration that he might have to follow his mothers wishes.

Why the Court is wrong

  • Tom has had many traditional vaccines under the supervision and care of his mother. To suggest that Tom’s resistance or acceptance of a physical injection indicates his view of its contents is absurd and medieval in its logic.
  • The ‘altruism’ justification is contrary to established principles of medical ethics that treatment is to be given taking into account the ‘best interests’ of the individual, not the wider community.
  • Any idea of altruism arises on adopting the government messaging of a positive benefit to others.  If the government message was it didn't have that benefit, the altruistic act would be to reject the vaccine as a waste of resources. The Court's justification of altruism strays into saying that whatever the government recommends must be the right thing to do.
  • Imposing a view of ‘altruism’ provides a means for any Judge to override the strongest and most reasonable of parent's views in order to enforce a government recommendation for injection or other treatment.
  • The Court chooses to recognise that a young adult may often goes against their parents views, but has not asked what weight a young man, who for 22 years has relied on his mother for everything, including particularly successful health choices, would give to his mother's views.


Parallels with ‘Gillick Competence’ 

Many people are aware of the legal principle that while parents are responsible for their child’s medical treatments up to the age of 16,  if a child under 16 has sufficient understanding then they are able to make serious medical treatment decisions. This is known as ‘Gillick Competence’, 

In Gillick, therefore, the Court held that physical age was not the deciding factor, but at what stage the child under consideration moves from being incompetent to competent to give consent.  So why does age 18 magically change everything and the issue of whether someone moves from being incompetent to competent suddenly disappear?

Why should a 16th birthday not matter but an 18th birthday does?  More practically, why should the government be able to enter her family home on the 18th birthday when the mother remains responsible and competent?

Tom, like many other special needs adults, will never develop that level of competence.  Mentally he will always be a child and his mother will always care for him.  For the good of society she should surely be encouraged and supported in caring for him whilst she is here and able to do so.  

For the lawyers: on the government side, an argument may be made that (a) parents have, in fact, never had any rights or duties in respect of their child once they reached age 18 and (b) the Mental Capacity Act 2005 changed things and made the Court responsible in any event.  The mother, however, would argue this is not a correct legal proposition and that if the Act intended this then it would have said so expressly in a clear language.

This complexity of this issue has been hinted at in the highest Courts, but so far has never been fully considered.  In the end, the question may simply be asked: 

How much or how little justification does the Government of the day need to reach into your home and interfere with your family decisions?     

Thank you for taking the time to read this page.  This could affect your family, your home.  All donations, however small or large, are greatly appreciated.  Please share this campaign as widely as you can.

If the immediate applications for appeal against current decisions should not be accepted, Tom’s mother may need to make another application to the Court.  Any excess funds after conclusion of any proceedings relating to Tom raised will put towards support for other legal cases fighting for the rights of disabled people and their families in connection with Covid-19 injections.

The above represents the views of the mother and arguments for the appeal expressed for the layperson.  Tom is not the real name and any Court decisions will anonymise Tom and his mother.

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 9

Tom's Mother

April 6, 2024

Hearing Date is Set

Following the last hearing in February, the hearing has been set for two days over 4th and 5th July 2024.  

At the February hearing, the Judge had said he would provide his written decision following the hearing.  That has not been received but, when it is, it will be posted here.

It is also not yet known who is the expert the authorities will seek to 'hot tub' with Tom's specialist, or what that expert will say.  

Meanwhile, the case is attracting wider mainstream attention, having been front page on The Telegraph on 3rd April and and the focus of an emotional video presentation by John Campbell that had more than 200,000 views within 24 hours.  

Thank you for keeping sharing this important and disturbing case, for each and every donation received and for your comments which mean so much to Tom's mother.      

Update 8

Tom's Mother

Feb. 22, 2024

Roll out a government expert and hold your nose

At the public hearing on 08 February, watched by many via video link, Mr Justice Hayden refused to make orders to enforce the existing order, made in September 2022, that Tom should be injected 'as soon as possible'. Instead, he accepted that the advice of the specialist in Tom's condition, Trisomy 13, warning against injection for Tom given what is both known and unknown about that condition, should now be considered.

Directions were given that a expert should be appointed who can provide written evidence and, with the Trisomy 13 specialist, be examined and engage in open discussion in future hearing (a process referred to as 'hot tubbing'), if at all possible to be before Hayden J.

Dates for that hearing have yet to be set, but it is unlikely to be before the summer.

The Judge had, of course, seen the specialist's warning nearly 12 months ago in March 2023. Although confirmed reasons in writing are yet to be received, in essence the explanation for this change of course was that:

  • The risk from vaccination must be looked at context that an unvaccinated Tom has survived infection for years.
  • With the passage of time, we now live in world more questioning of pandemic regime and there is opportunity to evaluate the specialist's advice in a formal process.
  • The specialist emphasises that efficacy and safety of the C19 vaccine in a cohort of Trisomy 13 patients has never been studied in randomised clinical trials and the data for the vaccine does not cover individuals with this abnormal chromosomal arrangement. A degree of caution is therefore warranted.

As a result, there was no need to consider the arguments of the lawyer appointed by the Court to represent and speak for Tom as his Accredited Legal Representative (ALR), always with his best interests in mind.  What the ALR had been arguing for – hold your breath and your nose at this point – was this:    

  • the specialist medical advice should not be considered
  • that recommendations for vulnerable made in government guidance must be followed
  • Tom’s mother had shown contempt for the Court
  • the Court should make orders warning as to imprisonment and seizure of her assets if she should seek to prevent Tom’s vaccination

The ALR has not been explained how removing Tom from the love and care of his mother and seizing her assets and Tom finding himself in the care of local authority would be in Tom’s best interests.

Regardless, with the public attending the hearing Hayden J did take the opportunity, seemingly in response to this crowdjustice site, to say that this case not about State versus the Individual. Rather, he said, it is about ensuring the incapacitated have the same rights as those with capacity, which is very different conceptually.

As to the Judge's view of the matter being conceptually very different, Tom's mother agrees entirely: those with capacity do not find that on reaching age 18 years the Court takes for the State their family rights and responsibilities; they do not find that they are stripped of the support and protection against interference from the State that they have enjoyed from the caring exercise of their autonomy by their family for the previous 18 years.

To emphasise the gaping chasm between the attitude of the Court of Protection and, some might imagine, the vast majority of the public, the Judge even rhetorically asked Counsel for Tom's mother if he would want his parents to make decisions for him. (His answer, of course, would be yes.)

This case raises a number of important issues:-

  • The rights of the family in relation to an incapacitated adult child.  Who decides? The State or the family?

  • What role are Accredited Legal Representatives (ALRs) appointed by the Court to represent vulnerable individuals actually playing?

  • What is the ethical and legal basis upon which the Court makes ‘substituted judgment’ to say what Tom would do instead of the family?

  • Can the Court make such a judgment for Tom based on its imagination that he would want to accept medical treatment in order to protect others and save NHS resources for them?

This is not, has never been, the emergency situation of vulnerable parents acting beyond reason where, some might reasonably argue, that intervention of the State may be justified. This case is about a family doing an exceptional job and, come age 18, the Court acting with the State to usurp the role of parent. This case is about us all.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please share as widely as possible. Please donate if you can afford to do so. Tom's mother looks forward to reading your comments.

Update 7

Tom's Mother

Jan. 17, 2024

Court to set precedent on Family v State

Tom's mother is being taken back to Court by the agencies of the State. 

It's more than 16 months since September 2022 when a County Court judge, His Honour Judge Burrows, ordered that Tom should be jabbed 'as soon as possible'. The Local Authority has now asked the Court to 'reconsider' the matter and give further orders to ensure the 2022 order is fulfilled. 

The family GP has refused to inject but the authority has found a GP who, like them, is wanting to inject despite that advice and without explaining the reasoning.    

A video update from Toms' mother is here:  https://rumble.com/v3zjevs-forced-vaccinations-on-our-loved-ones-toms-story-update.html

After further applications made by Tom's mother, HHJ Burrows has replied "I have discussed the case with Mr Justice Hayden, who heard the appeal against my earlier decision. It has been decided that the next hearing shall be before him on a date to be fixed." 

The passing of the matter to Mr Justice Hayden, a High Court Judge, is recognition that the case does, in the words of Court practice directions, raise "an ethical dilemma in an untested area." This being untested, it means a precedent will be set at the next hearing

DILEMMA

What is the dilemma? At its root, it may be seen as whether the Court should uphold wishes of the State over any rights of the family.  

More detail might be teased out from intentions that a local authority and a registered GP should:

  1. prefer governmental generic advice for categories of the population (those with severe learning difficulties) over specialist advice considering the individual patient
  2. accept unjustified and unethical consideration of what Tom would say if he had capacity
  3. override the family wishes to execute the wishes of government agencies
  4. override family rights when children reach 18 years old even though their mind remains that of an infant
  5. do all of the above without the excuse of an emergency pandemic (not that such should ever have been an excuse)     

If the jab order is dropped, that will be exactly what Tom's mother has asked for.  

Mr Justice Hayden has previously questioned, in Court and in front of Tom's mother, whether she might be "an anti-vaxxer", and use of such pejorative language is a matter of concern. If the order is repeated, however, the fact that these applications are being heard in the Court of Protection by a High Court judge instead of a County Court judge opens up the possibility of appeal to the Court of Appeal (and Supreme Court, if necessary). 

As explained in earlier updates on this crowdfund, this case is fundamentally about whether the Court agrees that medical policies of the State can override decisions of the family, whether or not supported by eminently qualified doctors.

Precedent

Because a precedent will be set at the next hearing, public support is more important than ever. This case is not just about the covid-jabs but about the State's ability to dictate medical treatments by its recommendations (which may ultimately be influenced by politics) overriding family decisions. This case may affect us all.

The legal process is expensive and Tom's mother looks after her son 24/7. Please share Tom's story as widely as you can and, if you can afford it, donate what you can to this fund.

Thank you for your support.   

Update 6

Tom's Mother

Oct. 25, 2023

Help! They're coming for Tom, again!

After months of silence, the authorities solicitors have written to say they have a jab ready for Tom and his mother must bring him to get it.

She was hoping the authorities had found better places to spend thousands of pounds from the public health coffers. Unfortunately not!  

It's extraordinary and devastating to Tom's mother. The jab programme has been ended for most of us and, of those still offered it, the majority in the UK and around the world are choosing to say no, thank you. But since Tom doesn't have the capacity to say no, he and his mother are denied that choice.

The authorities are still waving a Court order made 14 months. They think it is irrelevant that the WHO declared the end of any emergency in May 2023 and that that the government policy is to live with Covid long term. The view taken seems that long term also means an order without end, for repeated jabs for as long as the government says so.

If this can be done to Tom, anyone 18 or over without mental capacity can be made to have medical treatment because current government policy says so and despite the wishes of the family.

It cannot be right that the Courts facilitate this, that family rights are trampled on in this way. Tom and his mother trying to fight, not just for their family but for your family rights too.  You could be next.  

Please share this story and donate what you can.        

Update 5

Tom's Mother

May 30, 2023

Doctors and pharmacists SAY NO to Court Order

Great news for Tom and his mother. Doctors and pharmacists are standing up and saying NO to cooperation with the Court's order to give Tom the covid-19 'vaccine'.

8½ months after the Court first ordered that Tom be injected "as soon as possible", thanks to everyone supporting this case, Tom remains covid-jab free, just as happy as seen in this moving video


Lawyers for the authorities had sent the Court order to Tom's new GP. She had to ask twice, but when they finally provided the report from the specialist in Tom's condition, she refused to assist with carrying out the Court order on grounds it was unethical. The GP said NO.

It is not just the ethical principles that should concern health professionals. Steps were taken to ensure that anyone proposing to treat Tom would be aware of the full medical picture, not just the Court order, and also aware they should check with their insurance cover before jabbing someone despite knowing of an individualised assessment of risk of adverse reaction.

The authorities then sent an appointment for Tom to be jabbed at a vaccine centre attached to a pharmacy. We learn today that the superintendent pharmacist and owner has, after speaking to his insurers, the pharmacist said NO. Good on him!

Your financial support is still needed for this case. While it has not been possible to provide more regular updates since to do so may have prompted the authorities to act more quickly, legal work carries on to support Tom's mother.

The Court order is still in place and this will to return Court again. The Court has repeatedly been asked to reverse its decision taking account of the specialist medical evidence, a request it has repeatedly refused. Is the Court going to pushed back by the medics? With your support, that may just happen.

To help everyone say NO, please support this case with what you can afford and for sharing the news far and wide. 

(Do take a moment to read again the first page of this crowd fund case and updates to see how important the issues are. This is not just about Tom. It's about protecting family rights and our freedom.)


Update 4

Tom's Mother

March 31, 2023

Court process comes before Tom's best interests

At the start of this month, a further application was made on Tom's behalf, asking the Court to consider new medical evidence obtained from a specialist in Tom's chromosomal condition, trisomy 13. That condition is extremely rare. A doctor specialising in treating patients with trisomy-13 is even rarer.

The last update on this case (A Shot in the Dark) summarised the specialist's evidence.  Put even more succinctly: it would be foolhardy to proceed with injection and hope for the best when, from what little is known of the condition, there is good reason to fear the worst. First do no harm. 

The application was flat out rejected by the Court. 

No comment was been made on the evidence. The only reason the Court will give is that the application was an attempt to relitigate what has already been determined (i.e. the order for injection made made 6 months previously with yet another Autumn and Winter season survived by Tom without incident).  

It might be argued that such a response – seemingly a point blank refusal to consider significant new information that identifies specific risks of which the Court had been unware  - puts Court process above the best interests of the individual.  

Tom's mother is, naturally, finding the whole process very stressful indeed and her health is being affected.  She must now consider whether to appeal again against this decision.  Stay tuned for updates.  

Meanwhile, thank you for your continued support.         

Update 3

Tom's Mother

March 5, 2023

A Shot in the Dark

The Court of Appeal has declared that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider any appeal in respect of the orders made to date.  This need not necessarily be the case with further applications but, in any event, a fresh application was made to the Court of Protection on 2nd March 2023 to seek removal of the order for Tom's injection. 

The application pursues matters of wide public interest: 

  • unjustified state interference with the family responsibilities
  • using unevidenced altruistic motive to dismiss the views of the family
  • breach of medical ethics in putting society before the individual

The application has been presented with fresh evidence from a medical specialist in dealing with patients with Trisomy 13, the rare chromosomal condition that affects Tom.  The doctor's statement includes the following observations:

  • Understanding of cell processes in trisomy 13 individuals is extremely limited, but we do know that processing of DNA and RNA is different than for humans with 46 chromosomes
  • Effectiveness of the Covid vaccines relies on the presumption that individuals have the ability to normally process spike protein mRNA as well as the ability to respond to the 'oxidative stress' that production of spike protein generates.  There is no reason to presume that trisomy 13 individuals could mount any adequate response.
  • There is no data related to covid-19 injection of trisomy 13 individuals.

What is highlighted is a pure experiment on trisomy 13 individuals that is not even within a clinical trial.  This is nothing more than a shot in the dark.

While the Local Authority and the Court lawyers appointed to represent Tom directly might be forgiven for not being aware of, or or having thought to engage, such a specialist in the first place, it is concerning that they should wish to proceed with injection without investigating this specialist evidence.

Next update will follow when directions are received from the Court.

Meanwhile, thank you for your support.  Please donate what you can afford to support Tom and his mother and please share widely to help bring this matter to wider public attention.

 

Update 2

Tom's Mother

Feb. 2, 2023

It's all a little unusual...

Having filed at the Court of Appeal the initial application for permission for the appeal to be heard, a reply was received.  This was that no further action would be taken because a Master of the Court had determined that, on the basis of a 2013 case, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal.  

No further explanation was given and a request has been made for the decision to be reviewed by a Judge of the Court of Appeal, pointing out that (1) the 2013 judgment acknowledged there was a route of appeal, but the application in that particular case was too narrow, (2) the current application was drafted widely so as to cover the route envisaged and (3) the Judge at the last hearing in Tom's case had expressly contemplated appeal was possible.    

It is unusual that this law should be so complex and more restrictive than from other Courts.  It is very unusual that a senior judge with specialist responsibility in the Court of Protection should, seemingly, be suggested to misunderstand the law regarding appeals.  

It is even more unusual that a Judge should of his own initiative contact the Court of Appeal, write to the local authority lawyers to ask why an order for treatment (injection) had not been fulfilled yet and, on being informed that no timescale could be given for a further response from Court of Appeal, contact the Court of Appeal again and be able then to report that the Court of Appeal would be in touch with the lawyers very shortly.

For the moment, Tom's mother waits and worries, but sends thanks all who have supported her and Tom in their plight and in the defence of the family against government intrusion.  It is about Tom, but also your family and much more than covid-19 injectables. 

Please share and encourage donations.  Every penny counts.  This fight is important and funds are urgently needed to ensure it can be continued as far as necessary.


For those interested, the 2013 case mentioned is this: TA and AA v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1661)

Update 1

Tom's Mother

Jan. 10, 2023

The Arguments on Appeal

While the issue in Tom's case may appear straight forward, and many are dumbfounded at the orders being made, the arguments are not and the Court has, so far, been resolute in its views.

Provided by these links are:

For those who have donated already, thank you!  

The modest initial target set is to help get this campaign going and as some contribution to the legal costs, but this case, and this battle, could be a long one with many obstacles.  Please keep sharing and donating.  

    There are no public comments on this case page.