Despite his parents’ objections that his situation may contribute to health consequences, potentially death, after the shot, a judge in the United Kingdom’s High Court ordered that a 20-year-old gravely crippled man must have a COVID-19 shot against his parents wishes.
DC, a 20-year-old man whose name has been changed by the judge, suffers from a number of chronic ailments that necessitate him to live in a residential facility where he may receive round-the-clock treatment. His parents had been caring for him full-time until lately.
DC, according to court filings, he suffers from “schizencephaly, microcephaly and cerebral palsy … epilepsy, curvature of the spine, dystonia, and intermittent stridor, as well as pseudomonas of the lungs.”
DC is susceptible to respiratory diseases as a result of these issues, and is admitted to the hospital for treatment on a regular basis. He is incapable of communicating and is therefore deemed incapable of providing informed consent.
DC’s parents judged that the present batch of COVID-19 immunisations is “experimental,” and that an evaluation of their effectiveness was inadequate to justify administering the injections to their fragile kid.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Both parents do not have an ideological problem to the shots, according to court documents, rather their worries stem from a thorough examination of the hasty origin of the “vaccine” technology and the evidence surrounding harmful, if not fatal, side effects.
The court order notes that DC’s father, MC, “looked at figures from around the world, from emerging studies and data,” and was “not satisfied that the vaccine his son is being offered is as safe and efficacious as he (and the rest of us) have been led to believe.”
“He points to concerns over myopathy and other respiratory, vascular and neurological issues that may arise, and about which there is an inadequate database for a decision to be made,” the order continues. “He is particularly concerned about blood clots because there are a number of examples of family members with illnesses due to blood clots.”
When they were introduced to the public at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, the COVID injections have been linked to an elevated chance of dangerous blood clotting, with many countries suspending usage of the shots due to blood clot concerns.
Altogether, the national vaccine adverse event tracking system in the United Kingdom, Yellow Card Reporting, reported 1,445,836 adverse reaction records after administration of the COVID vaccination, with 1,996 of those being fatal.
DC’s mother, AC, was quoted as saying that after reviewing the accessible data on side effects, she was concerned that “administering this vaccine might send [DC] into ill health from which he will not recover.”
As a result, the parents urged that Burrows not prescribe their son’s vaccination, but rather collect a blood sample to see if he has already had natural resistance.
According to the judge, a doctor appearing on account of the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in charge of DC’s care believed that “the taking of blood in order to carry out such a test would be more traumatic than administering the vaccine, and so it was not something that he would advise or offer.”
The doctor added that “the official line on natural immunity is that the vaccine is better.”
Several studies conducted during the coronavirus crisis have shown that natural immunity provides strong and long-lasting protection against COVID-19, much surpassing that provided by multiple doses of presently available “vaccines.”
Moreover, according to a new study published on January 19 by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), natural immunity from earlier COVID-19 infection offers better protection against the virus than COVID vaccinations.
Those who got the vaccine in California and New York had reduced rates of first-time infection by a factor of 6.2 in the former and 4.5 in the latter, according to the seven-month study, than those that have never had COVID before.
The un-jabbed with natural resistance, on the other hand, experienced infection rates that were 29 times lower in California and 4.7 times less in New York. Those who had been vaccinated and had previously been infected had even lower rates.
In California, the innately immune were less probable (0.003%) than the vaccinated to be hospitalized, according to the findings (0.007 percent ). New York could not offer information on hospitalizations.
Dr. Peter McCullough, M.D., a prominent internist and cardiologist, stated in a Texas courtroom last year that “[p]eople who develop COVID have complete and durable immunity … You can’t beat natural immunity.”
Burrows, on the other hand, decided on January 31 that “on fine balance that it is in DC’s best interests to receive the vaccine and boosters.”
The judge voiced reluctance “to go against DC’s mother’s instinct and his parents’ analysis,” acknowledging that the “will be distraught” from the ruling.
Nevertheless, he described being “persuaded that without the vaccine he [DC] is at risk of COVID-19 causing him much greater harm than if he has it.”
After acknowledging that there are “risks associated with the vaccine,” Burrows said that he was “satisfied on the basis of the CCG’s evidence that those risks do not outweigh the advantages.”
The judge went on to say that his main motivation for permitting DC to be injected against his parents’ wishes was to improve DC’s “enjoyment of life by allowing him to be more involved in the life of his care home and with his parents,” in addition to the alleged health benefits of the shots.
DC was barred from participation in outside events without getting jabbed and then was compelled to isolate in his room for 10 days after family interactions.
“If DC were able to make a decision for himself, I am satisfied that would be a magnetic factor for him,” Burrows asserted.
An attorney for the case asked and was refused permission to appeal Burrows’ ruling.