Children Should Be Vaccinated to Benefit Their Mental Health, Says Chris Whitty
Last week the Joint Committee for Vaccinations advised not to give the Covid Vaccine to children aged between 12yrs and 15yrs which gave Chris Whitty a dilemma: How do you convince parents that their child needs an experimental gene-editing drug with a shocking safety record, when even the JVCI has warned against it? You claim that it is for the good of their mental health. And you thought it was about a virus.
After 18 months of imposing lockdown policies that damaged the mental health of every child in this country beyond measure, Chris Whitty is now about to use their mental health as the reason for their vaccination.
According to the Times Whitty is now set to recommend that children aged 12 and over should be vaccinated against Covid “to benefit their mental health, education and social development”. Gone is the idea that the vaccine will save them from the virus, or even that it prevents them spreading it, and in comes an even more tenuous and, frankly bizarre, reason to the jab to people who don't need it.
The Times reports:
The Chief Medical Officer for England is set to conclude a review of medical evidence early next week, with ministers promising that the first younger teenagers will be jabbed within five working days. …
Whitty and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are finalising a review into the wider benefits of child vaccination after the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation gave them responsibility for making a decision. [Or, rather, after the Government chose to ignore the JCVI.]
The committee concluded last week that although the benefits of vaccinating healthy children aged 12 to 15 slightly outweighed the risk, the balance in favour was too small to justify mass immunisation on health grounds alone. They said Whitty should be tasked with considering the broader benefits to children and his review has been holding discussions this week.
The Times goes on to claim 'The desire to stop children taking time off school sick, and to help them avoid worrying about the pandemic and learning to get on with their peer group were together judged to tip the balance in favour of vaccination.'
If you breakdown that statement his arguments dissolve, rapidly; the first part is based on a huge lie: children were off school because they were closed (by Whitty), or because someone received a positive PCR test - in neither case was a child actually sick. Secondly, to claim that children are worried about the pandemic when Whitty and his colleagues have made them that way with relentless propaganda designed to elicit fear and panic is a bit fucking rich even for him. Likewise implying that the jab will help with their mental health when they've been made to suffer by this bloke unnecessarily is at best a sick joke.
Suddenly we are meant to believe that Whitty cares about a child's mental health when he's spent the last 18 months willfully destroying it.
This isn't about a virus, and this isn't science, its state sponsored child abuse. Whitty has made a massive miscalculation here though, because when a child dies from the vaccine the public's outrage will be immense, and something he will not be able to control.