Tuesday, June 18, 2024
HomeCOVID-19What are our teachers thinking?

What are our teachers thinking?


THE government have already injected vulnerable children who have learning and physical disabilities with experimental gene therapy jabs and last week started on children aged 12-15 in England and Scotland, with Wales and Northern Ireland scheduled to follow.

We are the latest country to impose Covid -19 jabs on children, following the lead of such bastions of freedom and democracy as Canada, China, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the Philippines, and the UAE.

Almost 3million British children are now eligible to receive a single Pfizer/BioNTech jab following the government’s acceptance of the decision of the Chief Medical Officer Christopher Whitty

His ruling went against the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) which concluded earlier this month that the ‘margin of benefit’ was too small to support a universal vaccination of healthy 12- to 15-year-olds given that the long term impacts of the jabs on this age group are unknown. JCVI’s strong medical recommendation is that only the most clinically vulnerable children should be jabbed.

Whitty and a bevy of other medico-technocrats appeared before the Commons Education Committee to explain their rationale, and their key messages were relayed to teachers in what used to be known as the Times Educational Supplement, now Tes.’

Tes swallowed the line that Whitty’s decision is ‘medical, not political’ and disseminated propaganda that plumbs new depths of mendacity and wickedness. There was no evidence of critical thinking or independent thought in their piece or, indeed, any reflection on the potential harm that educators might be about to impose on their charges. Perhaps that is too much to expect.

The Tes article recycles Whitty’s cant that the ‘vaccination programme will reduce disruption to students’ education this winter’ and tells ‘school leaders’ what they ‘need to know.’

What school leaders, and everyone else, must know is that Chris Whitty, who is single and has no children, has finally cast off any vestiges of professional responsibility in forcing through this jab mandate and disseminating programmed newspeak.

He tells us that ‘the risk to children is small (true: it is an almost total 99.9973 per cent Covid 19 survival rate for healthy under-19s], and the risk of vaccination is small’ (false: as yet unproven). Regardless, this is a balance of risk decision that must rest with parents and carers in a free society.

Professor Whitty also advises that if 12- to 15-year-olds are not vaccinated now, ‘the upper limit of time in school lost could be over 12million days.’

He says he ‘had modelling done as part of this process’. I think what he means is that Neil Ferguson has been playing with his abacus again.

Professor Whitty shared his expertise with the committee on how educators might manage bullying and peer pressure on the un-jabbed. Unencumbered by any obvious understanding of school life for today’s 12-15-year-olds, he declares loftily that ‘no one should be stigmatised in either direction’ and that all pupils both vaccinated and unvaccinated will be included in all activities. Good to know.

The jabs will be administered by local School Age Immunisation Service teams (SAIS) who will ‘work closely with schools to identify all eligible targets children.’ As Our NHS have bought a lot of flu vaccine this season, most secondary school pupils will also be ‘eligible for both the flu and Covid-19 vaccine,’ opening the prospect of simultaneous jabs in every child’s arms – how efficient.

Tes advises educators that  ‘consent letters’ are on their way to parents and guardians, although the government has already confirmed that parental consent may be unnecessary. Jabs can take place without parents’ knowledge, provided that it is ‘in the child’s best interests,’ and they are considered to be ‘Gillick competent’.

School heads are being told to expect ‘queries’ and encouraged to enter into ‘respectful (non-judgemental) discussion’ with pupils and their parents. The likelihood is that many parents will object, judging the whole exercise to be government over-reach in family matters.

Some parents have already signalled that they will hold teachers directly accountable for any medical intervention that they have not formally approved and that they consider an assault. ‘Cease and desist letters’ are already in circulation.

In a ‘you can run but you cannot hide’ threat, the government state that ‘alternative arrangements will be made to ensure those not in school are vaccinated, including those who are home schooled or in secure services’.

Tes, meanwhile, is reassuring school staff that they will not be responsible for any ‘clinical aspect of the delivery of the programme’. This may be very poor advice, as the extent of their liability is yet to be tested in law.

In a recent case the High Court indicated that once a vaccine ‘was approved that courts would likely consider Covid vaccination to be in a child’s best interests’.

That statement, however, was strictly obiter (a legal ‘by the way’)and included the important qualifier – ‘absent a credible development in medical science or peer-reviewed research evidence indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety of the vaccine or a well evidenced medical contraindication specific to the subject child.’

It seems to me that this comment together with the original statement from the JCVI is clear – they both urge extreme caution. There is no scientific evidence that these children will benefit from Covid- 19 jabs or that they pose any a risk of infecting others. There is, however, growing evidence that many will suffer harm.

Professor Whitty insists that ‘our professional advice is completely medical’. This is false.  

To quote a phrase often attributed to Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the context of life lived under Stalin’s oppression:

‘We know they are lying; they know they are lying; they know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying. And still, they continue to lie.’   

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kate Dunlop
Kate Dunlop
Kate Dunlop is a mediator.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.