Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you as both a concerned former pupil of St. John’s CE Primary School (Quarry Bank Road, Keele, ST5 9AF), and a concerned citizen with longstanding ties to Keele, where my family arrived in the early 1950s. Both my father and grandfather taught at Keele University for many years, and I, various family members, and many friends, attended St. John’s School over a three-decade period, commencing in the 1960s.

As such, I frequently revisit Keele, and when I did so on August 15^th, went to see St. John’s school as part of a walking tour of the locality. When I arrived, I was deeply shocked and distressed to be “greeted” at the gate by what can only be described as a form of state propaganda, with two large banners instructing children to keep away from each other, and to get vaccinated as “the best way to protect yourself this winter”. The vaccination instruction was accompanied by a large and arresting image of a masked individual.

These highly politicised advertisements have absolutely no place whatsoever at a primary school, which caters for children as young as four, and where even the oldest children are just eleven. In the first instance, all of these children are legally exempted from mask-wearing due to their age, with the catalogue of evidence showing how deleterious mask wearing is to growing children being exhaustive. I sample a small selection of this evidence in the reference section at the end of this letter, where all statements made in the correspondence are qualified with evidence.  

This means it is thoroughly inappropriate to be promoting mask-wearing to the under-12s, whilst – in reference to the banners’ other instructions – it is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect children as young as four to even begin to understand the concept of “social distancing”, without installing within them profound and lasting trauma and terror where they believe getting too close to other individuals, including their own closest family and friends, could kill them.

This is an unconscionable idea to install into the minds of small children, and the damage this will do to their delicate psyches and burgeoning relationships, now and for the rest of their lives, inestimable.

Please note that the prospect of two-metre “social distancing” as a method to control disease is based on extremely weak and questionable evidence, but even were the evidence more robust, this practice should never be imposed on young children, not least because all the evidence has consistently shown that they are at such a miniscule risk from “Covid”.

This being the case, children should never have been considered potential recipients for any Covid vaccine, and we were assured repeatedly by ministers and scientific experts in the early stages of the pandemic that they would not be (due to the vaccine being both unnecessary for this age-group, and the fact it had not been tested on them).

However, when pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer - recipient of the biggest criminal fine for fraud in all of history - realised they could increase their vast wealth even further by targeting children (please note vaccines are for-profit products made by ultra-wealthy companies, and not benevolent charitable gifts from philanthropists), they decided to take aim at the nation’s young - despite the fact the safety data for giving this very new and experimental injection to children is deeply inadequate.

I have already written to every secondary school in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent area warning of the incredible risks of administering this injection to children aged 12-15 (tragically, one such school saw two boys die suddenly and for unexplained reasons in the same week – the week the local vaccination drive for this age-group began), but it never occurred to me that I would need to contact primary schools too, as I simply could not – and cannot – conceive of any pastoral environment caring for such young and vulnerable children being so reckless and cavalier with their safety.

Please find enclosed an information pack regarding the risks of the interventions your school is attempting to impose on children, and a primer on the critical legal and ethical importance of “informed consent” regarding medical decisions.

Primary-school aged children, by definition, are unable to offer this, since they are children (and children aged 11 and under are too young to be considered ‘Gillick competent’, even with the most liberal application of this frequently misused and exploited ruling), and therefore, any attempt to sway them into undertaking risky medical decisions such as vaccinations, with the type of state propaganda currently festooning St. John’s School, is deeply unethical to the point of being potentially illegal.

A school should be a safe, supportive learning environment for children, where they can grow, develop, and make friends, free from any adult political agendas being foisted on them. A school is certainly not a clinical environment, and the children’s parents are not typically present, therefore it is completely inappropriate in every way for a school to be promoting vaccinations, an intervention which – along with every other pharmaceutical product - should never be promoted to children, and only offered to the adults legally responsible for making medical decisions for those children.

It dismayed me greatly to see these aggressive and misleading pharmaceutical marketing campaigns defacing St. John’s School, as I enjoyed a happy and safe time at the school, free from inappropriate political lobbying or pharmaceutical profiteering, as did my peers, and many generations before us.

It is therefore of critical importance that such an experience is preserved for current and future generations, and that Keele’s children are not sacrificed as political pawns on the altar of further enriching the coffers of pharmaceutical companies – companies that bear no legal or financial responsibility if their vaccines irreparably harm or kill children.

Therefore, if these imposing banners, which represent an explicit attempt of the state to groom children into accepting risky and invasive experimental drugs, are not removed from the St. John’s School railings before term recommences in September, I will consider the school and its governors derelict in their responsibility to safeguard children, and I will pursue further formal action.

Please note this letter has been sent to [the Headteacher], [the Vice-Chair of Governors], and [the Chief Executive of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council].

 I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,

Miriam A. Finch

Founder, Informed Consent Matters

www.informedconsentmatters.co.uk

(Online readers, please note that each postal recipient of this letter also received four information leaflets, as available at the Informed Consent Matters leaflet store: https://www.informedconsentmatters.co.uk/shop)

REFERENCES:

Mask risks to children: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/face-masks-the-risks-vs-benefits-for-children/

• Children under 11 are mask exempt: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own/face-coverings-when-to-wear-one-and-how-to-make-your-own#if-you-are-not-able-to-wear-a-face-covering

• 2m social distancing rule “arbitrary”, “not an effective mitigation measure”: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/two-metre-covid-19-rule-is-arbitrary-measurement-of-safety

• Children are at effectively no risk from Covid: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/questions-covid-coronavirus-children-kids-uk-rules-2021/

• BBC quotes Matt Hancock: “the vaccine will not be used for children. It hasn’t been tested on children.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/55192468

• Two children die at Newcastle-under-Lyme school in half-term week: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-59154365

• Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for criminal fraud – biggest criminal fine in history: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine

• COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have required that countries indemnify them for any adverse events suffered by individuals as a result of the vaccines: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2021/12/16/645981.htm