Anna de Buisseret

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Anna de Buisseret in 2021 waving a copy of a legal case and very inaccurately describing it.
I fought the law
and the law won

Icon pseudolaw.svg
us crazy
Needles are scary
Icon vax.svg
Pricks against pricks
The Simpsons predicted Anna de Buisseret in 1997.
We do not recognise the speaker as an expert in the field of vaccine regulation and find no basis for her claims, which we regard as false and seriously misleading.
—Julian Hitchcock, an actual lawyer at Bristows[1]
I’ve explained multiple times already that I am not conducting ‘reserved legal activity’ so do not require a practising certificate.
—de Buisseret explaing her use of the term "lawyer".[1]

Annamarie Harvey de Buisseret also known as Anna de Buiscuit[1] is a non-practising, "confused,"[2] and "just wrong"[3] solicitor[4] with multiple misunderstandings of English case law[2] turned antivax activist, whose legal advice has been described by experts as "false," "seriously misleading,"[1] and "errant nonsense."[3]

Taking de Buiscuit[edit]

The vaxxed have been deceived, lied to, coerced, threatened, intimidated, harassed, guilt tripped and shamed into taking part in this live human experiment.
—de Buisseret not being antivax.[5]
I am not "anti-vaccine", I am against the use of experimental gene treatments.
—de Buisseret reciting the anti-vax mantra.[5]

De Buisseret came to prominence in July 2021, making the unsubstantiated claims to bemused-looking police officers outside an NHS vaccine centre that, "We are a common law jurisdiction, [the vaccines] are causing harm. It’s against the law to cause harm and it’s also a duty to prevent harm from happening." And quickly escalating to claiming, "For the public record these [vaccines] are not legal, that’s precisely why we are here. They constitute crimes against humanity, they are bioweapons on the evidence that this is a eugenics programme, it’s genocide."[1]

De Buisseret returned to the spotlight, following the expansion of the vaccine roll out to over-12s, in a video endorsed by celebrity contrarians Gillian "awful poo lady" McKeith and Matt le Tissier.Wikipedia Waving an entirely unrelated high court ruling in the face of another bemused police officer outside of another NHS vaccination centre while demanding he think of the children:

You’re not upholding the law. Here is the law, you can read it for yourself. This is Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. It specifically says that children under 18 cannot give their informed consent to experimental medical treatment and you need to go to the court to get a declaration. It says it here, come and read it![2][3]

Demanding to see the manager, she went on to state:

You’re still injecting children. That’s against the law! It’s illegal, it’s unlawful, it’s immoral and it’s unethical – and you will be held responsible. You will be held accountable for the death and the injury you cause. You don’t care, do you? You’re just going to kill children. You get £12.50 per jab, that’s all you care about. You’re murdering other people’s children and you’re defending them. Shame on you. This is murder.[2][3]

Following the overturning of the Bell v TavistockWikipedia judgment by the Court of Appeal, de Buisseret maintained:

The requirement for full informed consent for the child and parent is that a fully-qualified clinician take them through the informed consent process to tell them the material risks to that individual child. Every individual child must be individually risk assessed well before they have the injection. Otherwise they’re not being able to give their informed consent.[2]

In September 2021, de Buisseret was part of an antivax brain trust, including Dolores Cahill, obstetrician turned ivermectin pusher Tess Lawrie, clottish funeral director John O'Looney, retired policeman turned sovereign citizen Mark Sexton, suspended GP turned holistic practitioner Sam White, and former Pfizer pharmacologist turned antivax activist Michael Yeadon,Wikipedia which met with a “senior” Tory MP, said to have been head of the 1922 CommitteeWikipedia Sir Graham Brady,Wikipedia to call for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout to be paused “as a matter of urgency” and for those vaccines to “at no point” be given to children. Brady, while not confirming the meeting had taken place, clarified that if it had, it would not amount to an endorsement of their views.[6][7]

Biting de Buiscuit[edit]

Celebrities shouldn’t be retweeting this. People should listen to doctors, not Matt le Tissier or people waving copies of legal cases outside hospitals.
—Adam Wagner, barrister[3]
Waving a copy of a legal case and very inaccurately describing [it] does not count as the law.

In an email response to Reuters, de Buisseret challenged fact checkers to prove it “factually incorrect to state that both domestic and international laws are being broken here in the UK,” so they did and have continued to do so.[1]

International law[edit]

The British Institute of Human Rights says that while enforced vaccination would be a violation of human rights, voluntary vaccination protects the right to life and to be safe from serious harm. Furthermore, vaccines and medicines are routinely monitored as they are rolled out en masse, and this does not mean that they are experimental or untested. Therefore their administration does not constitute crimes against humanity or genocide as de Buisseret claims.[1]

Domestic law[edit]

The COVID-19 vaccines have been tested, licensed and monitored to ensure “the highest standards of safety are met and maintained” in accordance with UK law by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory AgencyWikipedia (MHRA). Severe side effects have been shown to be extremely rare, undermining the assumption of harm upon which de Buisseret's legal argument rests.[1]

Law professor Michael Thomson of the University of Technology Sydney and University of Leeds, maintains:

Given regulatory approval, and the overwhelming weight of biomedical data regarding efficacy and the extent to which the benefits outweigh the risks, a court is highly unlikely to see [the vaccine] as experimental. The nature of the risks and benefits also mean that a child or young person may well have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand the proposed vaccination, and will therefore be able to provide consent.[2]

"She's just wrong," responded barrister Adam WagnerWikipedia to her comments about children being unable to give informed consent for vaccination, continuing:

Firstly, as long as a parent consents to their child having the vaccine, they can have it, as long as it’s allowed by the NHS – which it is [for people with medical conditions in the 12 to 15 group, and all over-16s]. Second, if a child wants to consent themselves without their parents’ consent, or without their parents knowing – for example if their parents are vaccine deniers – they have just got to have an adequate understanding of the pros and cons, known as Gillick competence.Wikipedia[3]

Barrister Bianca Jackson added:

In general, the administration of childhood vaccines is considered to be in a child’s best interests and vaccines are not considered ‘experimental’. Indeed, there are no reported cases – in either private or public law – where the court has refused an application to vaccinate following a contested hearing.[2]

De Buisseret “seems confused” about Bell v Tavistock, concluded Jackson, stating:

She claims in the video that Bell v Tavistock means that children under 18 cannot consent. In actuality, Bell v Tavistock said: (i) the presumption remains that children 16 and over have the ability to consent to puberty blockers; (ii) it is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers; and (iii) it is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. This was not a blanket denial of a child’s ability to consent…[2]

Law professor Suzanne Ost of Lancaster University responded to de Buisseret's use of the Bell v Tavistock judgement:

There is no legal authority that supports the direct application of Bell v Tavistock to the issue of children, consent and mRNA vaccines. The Bell case was limited to puberty blockers and the [original] judgment makes this absolutely clear. Any extrapolation of the aspects of the judgment to children’s consent to mRNA vaccines would need to be argued in court.[2]

Bell and Tavistock was about a very different scenario to the vaccine," concluded Wagner, "Waving a copy of a legal case and very inaccurately describing [it] does not count as the law."[3]

BristowsWikipedia law firm told Reuters that regulation of medicines and vaccines, in which they specialise, is “complex” and requires “a very high degree of legal specialism”. “Without clear evidence of such expertise," they added, "we urge anyone who comes across such claims to report the post to the social media operator concerned.”[1]

See also[edit]