i the Natural person and cardholder, am putting you “On Notice” that: i do not consent to forced mandatory vaccinations/ inoculations with experimental vaccinations (containing Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles, and/ or other experimental/ unknown substances), and should you vaccinate me, against my will, then we are in agreement that this is in breach of International law and is the intentional Crime against humanity, and by doing so you agree to pay my fee schedule of five million pounds sterling (£5,000,000.00) per unauthorised vaccination;

Vaccines in the UK are not mandatory. There is an exemption on evidence of medical reasons and the Supreme Court recognises at common law that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. See Montgomery v Lanarkshire [2015] UKSC 11 https://supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks

All doctors and healthcare professionals should be aware of the landmark decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, given by the UK Supreme Court on 11 March 2015;

After the Montgomery case, the so called Bolam test, which asks whether a doctor’s conduct would be supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, no longer applies to the issue of consent. The law now requires a doctor to take “reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments.”

Another current document (Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together (2008)) describes a basic model of partnership between doctor and patient:

“The doctor explains the options to the patient, setting out the potential benefits, risks, burdens and side effects of each option, including the option to have no treatment. The doctor may recommend a particular option which they believe to be best for the patient, but they must not put pressure on the patient to accept their advice. The patient weighs up the potential benefits, risks and burdens of the various options as well as any non-clinical issues that are relevant to them. The patient decides whether to accept any of the options and, if so, which one.”

The Official NHS website https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

States on Consent to Treatment:

Consent to treatment means a person must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or examination.

This must be done on the basis of an explanation by a clinician.

Consent from a patient is needed regardless of the procedure, whether it’s a physical examination, organ donation or something else. The Principle of consent is an important part of medical ethics and International human rights law;

My Right to refuse to take forced/ mandatory experimental Vaccinations and/ or compulsory PCR/ lateral flow testing and/ or wearing face coverings by authority of the Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation, whereas i hereby exercise my right to refuse to submit to or to administer any Covid-19 experimental gene therapy injection and/ or testing swabs pushed up to the blood brain barrier through the nasal cavity:

1: THE NUREMBERG CODE (1947) PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS:

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods, or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must (mandatory) be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment;

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity;

2: The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature;

3: The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment;

4: The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury;

5: No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects;

6: The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment;

7: Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death;

8: The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment;

9: During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible;

10: During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject;

2: THE GENEVA CONVENTION – RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949:

ART. 32. — The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents;

3: THE HELSINKI DECLARATION 1996:

Article 25: “The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving their informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent“;

4: THE CODE OF MEDICAL CONDUCT:

Article R4127- 36 of the Public Health Code: ′′ The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctor must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences′′;

5: THE DECLARATION OF GENEVA:

Adopted by the General Assembly of The World Medical Association at Geneva, Switzerland, September, 1948 states:

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

6: THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE RESOLUTION 2361 (28 January 2021): advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union:

Article 731: “To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally”;

Article 732: “To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, because of potential health risk or for not wanting to get vaccinated”;

7: THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000/C 364/01):

Article 3: Right to the integrity of the person

1: Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.

2: In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:
• the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law;
• the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons, the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain;

8: THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 2005

Article 6: Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Article 11: Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization

No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms;

9: DEFINING CONSENT:

For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

The meaning of these terms are:

• voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
• informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
• capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision;

If an adult has the capacity to make a voluntary and informed decision to consent to or refuse a particular treatment, their decision must be respected. This is still the case even if refusing treatment would result in their death, or the death of their unborn child.

Consent should be given to the healthcare professional responsible for the person’s treatment.

This could be a:

• nurse arranging a blood test;
• GP prescribing new medication;
• surgeon planning an operation;

If someone’s going to have a major procedure, such as an operation, their consent should be secured well in advance so they have plenty of time to understand the procedure and ask questions.

If they change their mind at any point before the procedure, they’re entitled to withdraw their previous consent. – Source https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

Organisations cannot rely upon consent where there is a clear imbalance of power between the individual and organisation, as it is unlikely that the individual’s consent was ‘freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation’ – Source https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

THE HIPPOCRATES OATH STATES: “I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion”;

Case Law on Consent:

“There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.
He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”
CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70

Should you vaccinate me, the cardholder, against my will, then we are in agreement that this is in breach of International law, and is the intentional Crime against humanity, and by doing so you agree to pay my fee schedule of five million pounds sterling (£5,000,000.00) per unauthorised vaccination;

10: THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE – Resolution 2361/2021
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html

The Council of Europe, to which all European states belong, [except Belarus, Kosovo and the Vatican], decided on 27.01.2021 in its resolution 2361/2021, inter alia, that no one can be vaccinated against their will under pressure.

The 47 Member States are requested to notify before vaccination that vaccination is not mandatory and that non-vaccinated people should not be discriminated against.

Discrimination is also expressly prohibited in case of existing health risks or if a person does not wish to be vaccinated. Vaccine manufacturers are required to publish all vaccine safety information. With this resolution, Europe’s largest human rights organization has now established standards, obligations and guidelines under international law to be applied by all 47 member states, including the EU as an organisation.

Discrimination, for example in the workplace or travel bans for unvaccinated people, are therefore excluded; by International law. In any legal proceeding, against any authority, any employer, any travel provider, any responsible person.

7.3.1: Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;

7.3.2: Ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;

7.5.2: Use vaccination certificates only for their designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side effects and adverse events;

11: GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES

Pursuant to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Section 2: General duties of employers to their employees:

(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees;

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular—

(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.

(6) It shall be the duty of every employer to consult any such representatives with a view to the making and maintenance of arrangements which will enable him and his employees to co-operate effectively in promoting and developing measures to ensure the health and safety at work of the employees, and in checking the effectiveness of such measures.

12: HEALTH and SAFETY EXECUTIVE HSE

(2) Health and Safety law (criminal law):

Under health and safety law, as an employer, you have a responsibility to protect workers and others from risk to their health and safety.
Health and safety law is mostly enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or the local authority. Responsibility for enforcement depends on the type of workplace.

If you do not comply with a regulation relevant to your work, you’ll normally be committing a criminal offence and could:
• get verbal or written advice;
• get an improvement or prohibition notice;
• be prosecuted;

Complying with the law:

No one has to have been harmed for an offence to be committed under HSWA – there only has to be a risk of harm.

Obligations in international law are binding on countries which have agreed to abide by them. This means that when the UK Government has signed a treaty and Parliament has ratified it, the country has made a formal commitment and the Government must do everything the treaty requires;

Status of COVID-19

As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK, according to the Official Government website (See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid- 19) that states:

“The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.

No vaccinations, currently being used including (but not limited to): Pfizer/ Biontech, Oxford AstraZeneca, Moderna Vaccine, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Vaccine, nor any others; have been fully tested and are currently on trial until 2023, and are therefore experimental and the long term side effects are unknown.

i do not consent to taking any experimental vaccinations and i cannot be compelled, manipulated, extorted, tricked, threatened, placed under duress, nor coerced, nor so affected, under the colour of law by any Natural Person or individual acting in any capacity whatsoever, nor any Artificial Person, Agent, Entity, Officer, nor any other party into waiving any of my God-given Rights, nor to act in contradiction thereof, nor to act in the opposite of the moral conscience and dominion granted to me by God, nor can i be deprived of any of these Rights, or immunities except by lawful due process;

Furthermore, if i lose my job and become unemployed as the direct result then we are in agreement that you have also breached Article 23(1) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; and i shall be making claim for unfair dismissal and seek compensation;