WITH the announcement that children aged five to 11 are to be ‘offered’ a Covid-19 vaccination, it is clear that ministers are determined to pursue their child vaccine programme with heed neither to safety nor to need; the last vestige of resistance from the JCVI apparently having evaporated. Despite repeated urgent warnings from independent scientists and medics that the child vaccination should be paused, the pressure to get every child jabbed has continued unabated, as one father has confirmed to us. In his account below of his mounting scepticism and concern at the government’s mendacity and its refusal last year to listen to its own expert advice, he reports on the bribery and targeted pressure he and his family, amongst many, have been subjected to in the effort to make them comply.
On November 10, 2020, Matthew Hancock announced in the Commons that vaccination against Covid-19 was to begin. He was subsequently questioned by 53 MPs of all parties. To the deep shame of our parliament, not a single one asked Hancock why jabbing was considered the only response to a virus that did no serious harm to 98 per cent of the population. None asked the criteria for approving the jabs, or what guarantee he had that they would be effective. None asked about the safety of the jabs or the relevant drug trials. None questioned whether there would be side-effects, and what systems would be in place to record any adverse events. Not one, not even the supposedly anti-corporate socialists, asked why Big Pharma had been given immunity from civil and criminal legal action.
One question that Hancock was asked – by his shadow, Jon Ashworth – was whether the jab would be given to children. This was his response: ‘The vaccine will not be used for children. It has not been tested on children. The reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low . . . it would be absolutely a clinical decision as to how to take this matter forward’. Again, no MP rose to ask him to guarantee this, nor of the criteria that would be adopted to make any such ‘clinical decision’.
On June 4, 2021, the MHRA issued ‘emergency authorisation’ for the use of the Pfizer jab for children over 12 subject to the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
In mid-July 2021, the official position of the JCVI remained that healthy under-18s did not need to be jabbed, but on August 4 they pivoted to announce that 16-17-year-olds could be offered the jab, and that a decision on jabbing those aged 12-15 would be made after the consideration of further data.
This decision was announced by MHRA chief Dr June Raine. Reading carefully from a script, she proffered reassurance of ‘robust standards on safety, on quality and on effectiveness, and as I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, your safety always comes first’.
A month later, on September 3, the JCVI declined to recommend that any but very sick 12-15s be offered the jab, saying ‘the margin of benefit is too small to support universal C-19 vaccination for the age-group’, and that recipients were at risk of serious damage such as myocarditis.
Did this significant step prompt the Health Secretary to pause and launch an inquiry into the necessity to jab children? No, Sajid Javid simply by-passed the JCVI advisers and asked for alternative advice. On September 13 the plans of Javid and the government were realised when the chief medical officers of the four home nations advised that on the spurious and unscientific grounds of ‘mental wellbeing’ and to ‘avoid disruption of education’, children over 12 could be jabbed. This ‘advice’ held very serious consequences for the lives and health of many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of children.
After the ‘approval’ there followed a shocking campaign to promote jabbing, involving emotional blackmail and a diversionary debate about consent. Politicians, NHS seniors, Sage members, teachers’ unions, journalists and public figures behaved unethically by nudging British children to ‘get jabbed to save granny’, (who of course had long ago been jabbed to save herself) and telling them to ‘take control of their own bodies’. Teenagers were encouraged to ignore the wishes of their parents and accept a jab. How many did so simply to assert their independence cannot be known. The cynicism of the government and NHS to play on this immaturity to acquire ‘misinformed consent’ was both frightening and worrying. Similarly, their callous determination to conceal, ignore and gloss over the real damage that jabbing kids has done.
Just before Christmas, on December 22, Dr Raine announced the authorisation of a new Pfizer covid drug suitable for 5-11-year- olds: ‘Parents and carers can be reassured that no new vaccine for children would have been approved unless the expected standards of safety, quality and effectiveness have been met’. It would be interesting to see the minutes of the meetings which made the decisions on recommending these new drugs. However, when accessing the records of the Paediatric Medicines Expert Advisory Group, one is met with the caveat that the information is being withheld as ‘there is no overriding public interest to release such information in advance of the regulatory process being completed’. (This sentence does not appear on the most recent minutes.)
No overriding public interest? The British people do not need to know about the decisions concerning the government’s drive to inject an untested chemical into the arms of five-year-olds, a treatment that none of them needs, and which has seen definite short-term damage, and unknown damage in the long term. Now of course we know that the decision has been taken, even though in December the JCVI advised against it for all but vulnerable 5-11s. I wonder what happened to change their minds?
Through the autumn I resisted the pressure to get my child vaccinated. At Christmas our GP surgery called up to inquire about the renewal of a roll-over prescription for our 15-year-old to ‘update records’. I explained that while we had been registered with the practice our child had never been issued with any prescription, never mind a roll-over one. ‘Just a misunderstanding then, sorry to bother you,’ said the caller. ‘Oh, by the way, has he/she been jabbed?’ I replied in the negative.
A few weeks later, a letter arrived signed by Maggie Throup, the Vaccines Minister, Lord Darzi of Imperial College and Kelly Beaver of Ipsos Mori, telling us that our child had ‘been chosen at random’ to do a swab test and enter online health information that will ‘help the NHS measure and understand the spread of C-19’. For ‘volunteering’ to take part, my child was offered a £10 gift voucher. The letter went in the bin.
I asked myself if it was unreasonable to decline to ‘help the NHS’, but first and foremost, I felt that the government should stop testing for C-19 because it can only prolong fear and regulation. Secondly, the manner in which the government, NHS, my GP and the MSM have behaved over the past two years has severely depleted my trust in authority and I am suspicious of everything they do. Lastly, we are constantly told to protect our personal details, so why should I sell my child’s data to these agencies for £10?
Suspicions were reinforced over last weekend when a reminder letter arrived, this time signed by Lord Darzi and Kelly Beaver. I did some simple digging. Lord Darzi is a public health technocrat with some intriguing interests registered in the Lords: he is heavily invested and connected with digital health security and Big Pharma. As for Ms Beaver, this is what she is doing with the data that she has been tasked to collect.
Readers may draw their own conclusions, but I have the feeling that Kelly Beaver is helping to construct a narrative that will justify the jabbing of 5-11-year-olds with June Raine’s new Pfizer Covid jab.
Of course, I might be totally off-base, and may have become paranoid and ‘misinformed’, and this is certainly possible: the last two years have been very stressful because I am certain we’ve been lied to, and as the old saying almost goes, being paranoid does not mean that they are not out to jab me.
It is deeply dismaying to confess that I am left with the impression that my child is being targeted and subjected to bribery, browbeating and emotional manipulation into accepting a drug that is in no way necessary. I’d suspected the next step would be bullying: ‘No university for you if you don’t take the jab’. Now I find it’s already true if you want to be a doctor, nurse or physiotherapist.
Inoculating children with untested compounds for no benefit is utterly baffling, because in schools they are legally bound to risk-assess everything. Teachers are not even permitted to apply sun-screen or administer aspirin to children in their charge, so the difference in standards appears ludicrous.
It should follow that the interests of children and teenagers in terms of their personal health matters should be similarly ‘safeguarded’. However, when it comes to C-19 inoculation the government has moved with reckless haste to get its young jabbed. My overriding feeling is that the health, welfare and interests of young Britons are being sacrificed for political reasons.