The Madness is getting worse: an experimental drug given to children for a disease they don't suffer from, is the latest idea put forward by fanatics at SAGE.
If you're happy for the Covid Cult to use your child as a guinea pig for a virus that doesn't affect them, then you probably need to have a serious word with yourself.
A year ago, if someone had asked if we should give children a brand-new gene therapy drug with no long-term safety data for a disease that doesn't affect them, they would have been thought mad. But here we are today, considering doing exactly that, and not even with the pretence that it is for their own safety. No, for the spurious idea that they somehow catch it, and pass it on without even knowing it. The idea that children need the vaccine at all rests on the mysterious 'Asymptomatic' covid patient. Something that has yet to be proven, and is unlike any other Coronavirus in history. An idea that, according to experts without vested interests in Vaccines, was entirely made up in 2020.
Two weeks ago, 40 UK doctors wrote to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) calling for an immediate halt to proposals for widen the temporary emergency authorisation for COVID-19 vaccines to include children on the grounds of major safety concerns. This went unreported by the mainstream media as do the thousands of deaths caused by 'very rare blood-clots' in young people. The media have been forbidden by Ofcom from reporting any negative stories about the Pandemic response at all. Millions of parents are happily putting their children forward to receive the jab, even though they are unclear why they're doing it, and what the real risks are.
The ethical issues around giving children the covid vaccine are, according to some experts, 'so complex' the JCVI have pass the responsibility to the Prime Minister himself. Those who are a tad more switched on than the average man in the street are painfully aware that the entire pandemic response has been politically driven. Open scientific and ethical debate has been banned, and when anything is banned from being said or debated you can be assured there is something they don't want you knowing. Something that will jeopardise their stranglehold on the public's psyche.
The urgency for such debate has increased by the approval, first in North America and now Europe, for vaccination of 12-to-17-year-olds, and Pfizer’s application is currently lodged with the MHRA. The rush to use you child as a guinea pig is astonishing.
Since the idea that Children should be vaccinated emerged the BBC have been obligingly running stories that children are now being affected. One such story reported by the BBC as fact turned out to be entirely false; Laura Duffell, a matron at a London hospital, said the current wave of the pandemic has hit ‘so fast’ and that ‘in the space of a week’ the situation has ‘gotten so bad’. She told BBC 5 Live: ‘It’s very different and I think that’s what makes it so much scarier for us… We have children who are coming in." ‘It was minimally affecting children in the first wave but we have a whole ward of children here and I know some of my colleagues are in the same situation with whole wards of children with Covid."
This was a lie, and angry pediatricians took to twitter to refute the lie, saying that it was 'totally irresponsible' and to reassure parents that there was no such thing and Children remained at incredibly low risk from Covid. It is not clear why the nurse decided to say such a lie but commentators have suggested that she was primed by the BBC to say it.
Undeterred by being exposed as peddling falsehoods, the BBC have continued pushing the narrative that children are now vulnerable to Covid. But they remain unaffected by the mysterious virus. But to get children to take the jab a multi-pronged strategy has been employed. Playing on parents fears that their children might become ill or die is when in reality their risk of dying from Covid is virtually nonexistent the real sickness here.
But a parallel message appears to be that children do not need this for themselves, but it is argued that vaccinating them could help reduce 'upward transmission' from schools to older adults. Remember Chris Whitty claiming that if schools were re-opened in march "many, many more people will die". again, an absolute and utter lie. there was no massive peak, as he claimed when kids went back to school, in fact, no uptick at all, deaths, and hospitalisations remained unchanged. But, of course Whitty was not called out on the bollocks he spouts palmed off as fact. In reality adults living with young children have a reduced risk for severe illness than those that don't. A fact that SAGE and the BBC don't like to tell you as it doesn't fit the narrative. Even more damning is that the data shows that trivial infections amongst school children might actually help boost the immunity of their adult contacts. But facts have never entered the pandemic equation. Your child must have the vaccine, whether they need it or not.
The more observant among you will have realised that your child taking an experimental drug for the good of society is a Communist idea. A core principle of a communist society is that the individual works for the good of the state, as opposed to a democratic society where the state works for the individual. Having the vaccine has been promoted as you doing 'your bit' for society. Submitting your child to a medical procedure for the good of that society is an extension of that communist philosophy.
So if the disease is extremely mild for children at best, what of potential adverse effects of vaccination? Tragically, in recent weeks we have seen reports of thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), an extremely rare condition, occurring in a significant number of young adults following vaccination, with cerebral venous strokes often occuring, some fatal. VITT was not detected in any of the trials but the MHRA now quotes the incidence following AstraZeneca vaccination as 1 in 77,000, stating 'the data shows there is a higher reported incidence rate in younger adult age groups compared with older groups’. Doctors advising an individual on benefits and risks are left to guess how much higher but AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn for under 30s and latterly under 40s, and the Oxford children’s trial was suspended. Again, the start of the trial was reported, to great fanfare, but it wasn't mentioned that they abandoned it because young people were dying horrible deaths from blood clots on the brain. The message that vaccines are completely safe and that children need them must be protected, so the media will cherry-pick what it tells you.
Pfizer appears to have similar thrombotic problems though possibly at a lower rate and this is likely to be a class effect involving the spike protein. With Pfizer, the Israel Health Ministry have confirmed that myocarditis is occurring at a rate of 1 in 41,730 for the 2nd dose in young men aged 16-30s, but highest in 16-19s. These are not trivial side-effects: they are potentially fatal or life-changing and appear to be occurring at a rate which is higher than that of severe outcomes for childhood Covid infections. This is without considering any as yet unknown longer-term adverse effects and bearing in mind that only 1,134 children were vaccinated in the Pfizer trials. Following the tenet “First do no harm”, routine vaccination of children against COVID-19 is contra-indicated.
A child is some forty times more likely to die from the vaccine than the Indian Variant, the 'reason' now given experts for children having it. Is that "doing no harm"? As children cannot be expected to make informed decisions about the risk vs benefit themselves it is down to clinicians to be open and honest with parents about these things. But they are not. These facts have been expunged from process. Parents have been purposefully been kept in the dark about the risks involved with these vaccines.
If a parent were to expose their child to alcohol, smoking, drugs and even extreme diets, social services would intervene, labelling such risky behaviours as child abuse, but giving a child an experimental drug known to cause deaths, for a disease that doesn't affect them appears to be not just ignored, but actively encouraged.