MISLEADING INFORMATION
Providing misleading information is unlawful and could vitiate consent
WHEREAS, if the information provided to the individual to obtain consent is misleading, thiscould vitiate consent as the individual has not been informed with accurate information.
"Misleading. If a complication is listed, but the risk level is not accurate, it could be construed
as misleading. A patient may accept a risk of internal bleeding at less than 1% but not if 10%of patients experience this complication. Major risks like brain damage, death, paralysis, andother life-changing complications should be outlined specifically, along with commoncomplications."- UK Medical Freedom Alliance "Informed consent and Covid-19 vaccines https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/.; andProviding incomplete information is unlawful and could vitiate consent
WHEREAS, if the information provided to the individual is incomplete, this could vitiate
consent.
"Incomplete information. Sometimes risks or complications that have occurred, but only rarely,
are not listed on the consent form.
If it can be proven that another physician would have disclosed the risk, but your doctor didnot tell you about it, and then the complication occurred, there may be a possibility to pursue
a medical malpractice claim."- UK Medical Freedom Alliance "Informed consent and Covid-19 vaccines."; andWHEREAS, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance has provided the following information on
informed consent and other relevant information. The UK Medical Freedom Alliance is analliance of Doctors, scientists and lawyers. The following letters are in the public domain andyou should refer to them. The UK medical freedom alliance website also contains further open
letters that have been sent regarding the covid19 vaccines and expert analysis of the covid
vaccines for the information of patients, including, but not limited to the following letters:
1. https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/ukmfa-open-letter-to-gps-vaccinators-reobtaining-informed-consent-for-covid-19-vaccines; and2.
Vaccine consent form
https://uploadssl.webflow.com/5fa586942937a4d73918723/5ff46d3fa0a18f0c8e0cbc2_UK
MFA_CV19_vaccine_consent_form_v3.pdf
3.
UK medical freedom alliance, Open letter to the JCVI re advice that Covid19 vaccines
should be offered to all pregnant women:
https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/ukmfa-open-letter-to-the-jcvi-re-advice-thatcovid-19-vaccines-should-be-offered-to-all-pregnant-women;

4.
UK MFA- Open letter re Vaccination Mandates by Employers for Employees or
potential Employees:
https://uploadsssl.webflow.com/5fa5866942937a4d73918723/6034d75d99ca064068db36c5_UKMFA_L4L_
Workers_Union-Employers_Vaccine_Open_Letter.pdf; andThe function of the law is to enable rights to be vindicated and to provide remedies whenduties have been breached.
WHEREAS, in the UK case of Thefaut v Johnson [2017] EWHC 497 (QB) at para [63], the Court
cited the judgments of the House of Lords in the UK case of Chester v Ashfar [2004] UKHL 41,
stating, inter alia:"63. Finally, I would refer to the judgments of the House of Lords in Chester (ibid) where theJudicial Committee held (by a majority) that where in breach of duty a patient was not warnedof a small risk of damage, which damage then eventuated, and the patient would otherwise
have sought advice on alternatives and would not have undergone surgery at the time and in
the circumstances that she in fact underwent surgery, the surgeon should nonetheless be
regarded as having caused the entirety of the damage. Lord Hope stated:"86. I start with the proposition that the law which imposed the duty to warn on the doctor
has at its heart the right of the patient to make an informed choice as to whether, and if sowhen and by whom, to be operated on. Patients may have, and are entitled to have, different
views about these matters. All sorts of factors may be at work here - the patient's hopes andfears and personal circumstances, the nature of the condition that has to be treated and,above all, the patient's own views about whether the risk is worth running for the benefits that
may come if the operation is carried out. For some the choice may be easy - simply to agree to
or to decline the operation. But for many the choice will be a difficult one, requiring time tothink, to take advice and to weigh up the alternatives. The duty is owed as much to the patient
who, if warned, would find the decision difficult as to the patient who would find it simple andcould give a clear answer to the doctor one way or the other immediately.
87.
...The function of the law is to enable rights to be vindicatedremedies when duties have been breached.

andtoprovide

Unless this is done the duty is a hollow one, stripped of all practical force and devoid of allcontent. It will have lost its ability to protect the patient and thus to fulfil the only purpose
which brought it into existence. On policy grounds therefore I would hold that the test ofcausation is satisfied in this case.
The injury was intimately involved with the duty to warn."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/497.html#para51 andhttps://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/41.html; and