UK High Court Judge Mandates a Jab With His Judgement.

Indebted to for the meat of this one.

Despite his parents’ objections that his situation may contribute to health consequences, potentially death, after the shot, Judge Burrows in the United Kingdom’s High Court ordered that DC a 20-year-old gravely crippled man must have a COVID-19 shot against his parents wishes.

Neither parent has an ideological problem with vaccines, 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.”

As a result, the parents urged that Burrows not prescribe their son’s vaccination, but rather order collection of 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.”

As the US FDA itself has admitted that the jabs do cause myocardia, a serious condition which damages heart tissue, which is not naturally self regenerating – in other words heart failure, this advice from the doctor is specious, and given that such knowledge is well within the public domain it is reasonable to expect that a person in a position of authority to make such a decision should be very well aware not only of that fact but also the extent of damage reported for the jabs.

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.”

The judge was plainly not prepared, for whatever reason, to inform himself as thoroughly as the parents on the matter and was content to rely on the advice of the opposing party despite the controversial background. It is my view that any person promoting, mandating or delivering the Injectates does so when the harm caused by them is proven to be forseeable both by peer-reviewed studies at the highest level and by the emerging metrics that show catastrophic damage to thousands of our citizens. The reliance upon advice from one of the profession promoting them is not an excuse.

The judge may feel hard done by with such criticism. Let us hope that DC is one of the 80% or so who survive with quickly apparent harm. Only time will tell in the longer term for all who have been the victims of this Outrage.