WHEN I began working with a legal team back in summer 2021 to discuss challenging the Government’s rollout of Covid treatment injections – laughingly called ‘vaccines’ – to healthy youths aged 16 to 18, we hoped that would be our final legal fight.
There was no clinical or ethical reason to risk a trial drug on this young age group, who were more likely to die from drowning than from Covid-19. Evidentially, our youngsters were being placed in the firing line: All the immediate and long-term risks, none of the benefits that the over-70s might obtain.
Surely, we reasoned, any right-minded judge would insist that the then Health Secretary Sajid Javid would reveal more evidence, data and scientific justification than simply, ‘the Chief Medical Officers say it’s okay’.
I’m paraphrasing, but a recurrent theme of numerous court appearances has been for important people to defer to ‘more important people in white coats’ who themselves have cited ‘mental health’ and ‘school absences’ as reason enough to load up teens with spike proteins via the entirely new and highly controversial mRNA technology.
And thus, aghast, I – along with the lawyers and our own impartial doctors – have watched with bemusement and horror as the green light for jabs was subsequently given to ages 12 to 15 and now – shockingly – five million five to 11-year-olds.
Frankly, we are busy people. We have other demands on our time. But nobody else is holding the government to account, not the political opposition, not the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI), no all-party parliamentary group and certainly not the complicit media. This isn’t something we want to do – it is something we have to do in order to sleep at night.
The British judicial system is the only opportunity we have to force the Government to account for its decisions. Officials will go unchallenged; Pfizer will be handsomely rewarded and we will have set a dangerous precedent for health care policy in this country.
If we do not want our children to grow up in a nation that dishes out drugs for no discernible health benefit as pharmaceutical companies applaud from the wings, we need to make as much noise as possible now. Every time we lose, we must pay the Government’s legal costs. It is an expensive undertaking and we rely on generous donations from the public and our own time.
Due to complex legal systems, we must now launch a new challenge for this latest five-to-11 age group directive alongside members of the British medical establishment, convened by the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council on behalf of a British mother and her children. The campaign is called Doctors say ‘No’, politicians say ‘Go’. Stop the 5-to-11s ‘offer’ (crowdjustice.com). Clicking this link will take you to the Crowd Justice page where you can donate to support to the legal challenge.
The case employs the same top legal team that continues to challenge the Government on the 12 to 15-year-old rollout. That battle is not over. In spite of statistical obfuscation and walls of silence, letters which remain unanswered and queries unresolved, we keep on fighting.
Even a cursory glance at the risk of Covid to children versus the known (and unknown) harms of the injectables reveals that we have an extremely strong argument. And, while this does not necessarily translate into a high probability of winning in court, it is of vital importance that these arguments are made – and the Government’s response recorded – to form part of an immutable public record. Our children will want to know what we did.
The Government has recently begun to climb down on many Covid policies (masks, lockdowns, mandatory jabs for healthcare workers etc) as the evidence becomes too obvious to ignore. But it is stubbornly pushing ahead with the least logical, most reckless policy of all – experimental pharmaceutical interventions on our children.
The complete lack of any risk-benefit case for children is set out in a letter that has been sent to the Government, with two ‘must-read’ annexes that list the facts and evidence in support.
These include that fact that the only potential health benefit that the JCVI can point to is based on modelling (and we know how successful that has been …) which speculates that the vaccine may prevent a very small number of hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions if another strain of SARS-Cov-2 appears.
The JCVI admits that jabbing five to 11-year-olds now is not designed to have any impact on the current Omicron variant (which since the end of 2021 has accounted for 99.9 per cent of SARS-Cov-2 cases in the UK).
Perhaps I’m being a little mischievous, but isn’t this akin to taking out a child’s teeth in case they get cavities in the future? It is materially without supporting evidence and might only provide a mild benefit at an unspecified point in the future based on speculation of another SARS-CoV-2 variant arriving. It is irrational at best, nefarious at worst.
Even if those contingencies do occur, the level of protection that the vaccine might afford to healthy five to 11-year-olds is also entirely speculative, as the JCVI admitted in its February statement – because the effectiveness of the vaccine lasts for a maximum of roughly 20 weeks and wanes over that period.
We cannot know if this drug would be effective against a future strain and this policy completely ignores the likelihood that natural immunity is acquired from infection by earlier strains.
It is accepted that by the end of January 2022, 85 per cent of five to 11-year-olds had already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection (ask any teacher and they will tell you that this figure is conservative, as there is barely a child at school who has not had Covid by now).
Furthermore, the JCVI has ignored the fact that administering the vaccine to 12 to 17-year-olds appears to have failed to prevent any hospitalisations in that cohort.
The Covid 19 Clinical Information Network data referenced by the JCVI in its February statement shows an increase in the number of hospitalisations of 12 to 17-year-olds in the seven-month period after vaccination when compared to the seven-month period before the vaccine was available to healthy children.
And this is before we have even tackled the potential vaccine harms. Even the JCVI admits that these harms are numerous, with some potentially lethal or life-threatening. But it splashes around in the shallows of this issue with seemingly little desire to dive deeper.
Serious harms such as myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – are known to have occurred in this age group, judging by the experience of children offered the vaccine in other countries. There is no reason to believe that other harms which are evident in adult populations (such as blood clotting) may not also become apparent in children.
We cannot possibly assess other injury to children due to a lack of available data at this time. There is no medical Covid emergency from which children need saving.
The JCVI has written off myocarditis as ‘mild’ in five to 11-year-olds, but it has failed to consider that it is a potentially lifelong condition with scope to cause fatalities in the medium term for a significant percentage of sufferers.
Some will argue that this benevolent government is merely ‘offering’ the drug – implying a freedom of choice. But parents and children have been denied basic information on the vaccine and its (side-) effects on the patronising basis that they are unqualified to judge the risk.
This is not the principle of fully informed consent upon which our medical profession has been ideologically built. It is a condescending and potentially dangerous path at the end of which there will be no form of recourse to the indemnified drug companies should the worse happen.
Our legal team will dismantle this grossly irresponsible policy, piece by piece, and show:
- Information is being hidden from the public.
- There is no benefit to children.
- Adverse reactions are likely in the hundreds of thousands.
- There is demonstrable risk of life-changing injury.
- In a full rollout, some deaths are to be expected.
For the jaw-dropping detail, and as an excellent resource for parents to share, read:
- Letter before action re 5 to 11-year-olds
- Annex A – Benefits
- Annex B – Risks
- Sweden has already refused to give these drugs to healthy children on the basis they provide no benefit and Norway is also not recommending them. Florida is the first US state to actively recommend against vaccinating healthy children. The UK must follow their lead.
- There is an emergency, but it’s not from a virus. It’s from this negligent policy clouded in secrecy, which we can only speculate is driven by politics and perverse financial profits. Covid may be out of the headlines, but our journey for answers continues. We owe it to our children.
Thank you for your support. Once again you can help our battle by giving a donation here on our Crowdjustice page.
The Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council is an independent group of senior health professionals and scientists challenging irrational and unethical government policies on covid vaccines for children.For more information, visit: https://childrensunion.org/ccvac/