Members of Sovereignty have carried out an investigation into how NHS school immunisation teams operate in secondary schools across Scotland. This investigation came about when a man in West Dunbartonshire was asked casually over the phone by a health professional if he wanted his child (aged between 12-15) to receive the nasal flu vaccine. This was despite his wife already signing a consent form to say ‘no’ and providing this decision with a wet ink signature.
The man was enraged when he realised the decision on the consent form was not being upheld and that the medical practitioner had been making false claims to his son in the hope he would ‘consent’ to being drugged on the school premises.
Indeed, FOI responses from every NHS board in Scotland confirms there is no third party present when children aged 12 and up – considered to be ‘Gillick Competent’ – are receiving the hard-sell from medical practitioners. Sovereignty has heard anecdotal evidence from parents across Scotland that there is terrific peer pressure put on children inside school to line up with others to have pharmaceutical drug products administered into their body. Pupils not ‘consenting’ can be ostracised and bullied.
The father of the child in a school in West Dunbartonshire chased up to the school, swore loudly at those present accusing them of assaulting children behind their parents’ backs, and hiding the full ingredients and serious harms caused by the nasal flu spray.
Needless to say the passionate, caring father now has a criminal record because NHS school vaccination teams and teachers don’t react well when faced with the truth.
Public Health Scotland
It’s important to question the benefit of any drug because all pharmaceutical drugs have risks attached. The AstraZeneca nasal flu vaccine (official name Fluenz Tetra) is no different. A dose of this is not just a “wee skoosh” as it is advertised by Public Health Scotland.
The follow screenshot provides an example of the questionable claims that PHS is making about the vaccine on its website.
The media doesn’t grill quango organisations funded by the taxpayers in Scotland in the way it should. This is why this research was carried out to help parents make informed choices when their child receives an “invitation” to receive the nasal flu vaccine inside school. We also wanted to determine whether this school vaccination programme is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
You’ll see from the FOI response (below) to Jonathan Black’s information requests, Public Health Scotland doesn’t hold information in relation to its claims regarding flu vaccinations.
Education Department
We submitted an FOI request to West Dunbartonshire Council’s Education Department (whose personnel are ultimately responsible for pharmaceutical drugs being administered in schools in the region) asking if it had any data to back up the claim administering nasal flu vaccines reduces school absences, and received the following reply.
West Dunbartonshire Council’s response to question 1 (see below) shows they do not have any data and admits “school absence is not an outcome measure” in determining vaccine effectiveness. Therefore the main selling point used by the NHS and Public Health Scotland to administer the AstraZeneca nasal flu spray drug to school children across Scotland is unable to be proven or disproven.
Conclusion: There is no evidence of this claimed benefit.
Genetically Modified Organisms in the ‘Wee Skoosh’
According to the manufacturer’s Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) which is NOT reproduced on paper and sent home along with the consent form, Fluenz Tetra is a Live Attenuated Influenza Virus which contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)! Other ingredients are sucrose, dipotassium phosphate, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, gelatin (porcine, Type A), arginine hydrochloride, monosodium glutamate monohydrate and water for injections.
The patient leaflet (which is well hidden from parents and pupils considered mature enough to make their own healthcare decisions) can be read only on the NHS Inform website. In the Warning and precaution section it states:
Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor, nurse or pharmacist before vaccination:
• if you are in close contact with someone with a severely weakened immune system (for example, a bone marrow transplant patient needing isolation).
This warning suggests the receiver of a dose of Live Attenuated Influenza Virus becomes a transmitter of the live virus.
In the PIL there’s a sentence “Ask your doctor, nurse of pharmacist if you want more information about possible side effects from Fluenz.” Serious side effects appear not to be included in the patient leaflet. Anyone who does ask a medic if there can be serious side effects will have a few minor side effects trotted off to them, their sensible, valid concerns dismissed with a smile, and the medic will recommend taking the wee GMO skoosh!
Evidence of Harm Caused by Nasal Flu Vaccine
What follows is from page 8 of a paper provided by MHRA for Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation June 2022: VACCINE-ASSOCIATED SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS REPORTED VIA THE YELLOW CARD SCHEME DURING 2019-22.
1.7. Fluenz Tetra (Live attenuated influenza vaccine)
Since autumn 2013, the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) has been offered routinely to children, with the age range expanding each year. Fluenz was replaced with Fluenz Tetra in autumn 2014. Fluenz Tetra is now offered routinely to all children aged from to 2 years and through primary school ages.
The total number of suspected ADRs reported in association with Fluenz Tetra since their introduction is shown below (Table 7). Exposure has increased over time as the national programme has gradually extended. However, as the usage data for the vaccine is not available at the time of writing ERRs have not been calculated. Furthermore, the data extraction time period in any given year includes parts of two different flu seasons.
Table 7: Total number of LAIV reports and doses distributed (serious reports in brackets)
| 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | |
| Total number of reports | 416 (296) | 204 (116) | 318 (153) |
| Total number of reactions | 1405 (1128) | 586 (405) | 800 (469) |
| Total number of reports with a fatal outcome | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Exposure (doses administered) | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| ERR per 100,000 doses | n/a | n/a | n/a |
ERR = Estimated Reporting Rate
N/A: Data not available at the time of writing this report.
The Unethical Process of Gaining Consent
Answers to questions of how informed consent is established by immunisation personnel varied across NHS health boards. This flowchart is based on what happened at the school in West Dunbartonshire.
In response to our FOI question “Is verbal consent given by a parent/guardian over the phone on vaccination day considered “valid consent”? every NHS Board, apart from NHS Orkney, said YES it is.
Health boards which call parents on vaccination day do not record the phone calls therefore the skoosher’s claim a guardian gave verbal consent is taken on trust and may not even be true. What is true is that verbal consent can never be verified. Most crucially, no one in the family has signed a consent form yet the child is vaccinated on the school premises.
NHS Orkney was the only health board to respond “4. A form must be completed to provide consent / consent not given” (see all 5 questions and answers below).
The NHS school vaccination team in Orkney does not make casual phone calls to Parent 2 catching them on the hoof on vaccination day (in the hope they will verbally overturn the NO decision returned on the Consent Form signed by Parent 1 and their Gillick competent child’s decision after they said NO). In the case of a ‘Gillick Competent’ Child NHS Orkney accepts the decision. That ought to be the end of the matter in every school, however other NHS boards operate a twisted policy that the decision of a child assessed as Gillick Competent is only respected if they say YES. Their decision is not respected when they say ‘no’.
In very serious instances courts in the UK have overturned NO decisions of Gillick competent children when the child would die if a medical intervention is not carried out. A “wee skoosh” is not a medical intervention required to keep school children alive. Legally, Gillick competent children’s’ decision to not have this medical intervention ought to be respected.
Public Health Scotland, responded to question 4. “consent can be given verbally or in writing” (verbally over the phone). They would say that since the real purpose of this quango is to increase the uptake of pharmaceutical drugs and to create a marketplace for new ones.
School children in Scotland instead of being educated, are repeatedly having medical interventions foisted on them at great expense to the taxpayer. This is occuring without there being any medical necessity to the recipient (certainly none that can be proved by Public Health Scotland) and NHS school immunisation teams providing cherry-picked information on printed literature in order to increase uptake.
Withdrawing Consent for School-Based Vaccinations
To ensure your child isn’t given pharmaceutical products on school premises on vaccination days without your consent, if your child will be in school on the day when the immunisation teams are due, then you can write to the person responsible for your NHS region’s School Immunisation Programme.
A template is provided below, but you should adapt this to your particular circumstances:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please remove my (our) child(ren)’s name(s) from the register for school vaccinations. If you are not the correct point of contact to have my child(ren)’s personal details removed from the register, please could you provide me with the email address of the appropriate contact.
My child(ren) are:
I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely,