Friday, July 1, 2022
HomeCOVID-19What is the jab risk to children? Why aren’t we being told?

What is the jab risk to children? Why aren’t we being told?

-

TCW Defending Freedom writer Gillian Dymond is determined to find out what the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is doing to investigate the enormous number of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines that have been reported under the Yellow Card scheme and what risk/benefit analysis was carried out to justify rolling out the experimental gene therapy to under-18s.  

We published her letters to MHRA chief executive officer Dame June Raine, first sent in November last year, here and here.   

At the end of April, after an unsatisfactory response from the MHRA’s Chief Safety Officer Dr Alison Cave, Gillian returned to the fray, to ask Dame June for a copy of the risk assessment carried out by the MHRA before it decided to approve experimental Covid medications for use on children. After 20 working days, having still received no reply, she emailed her the following: 

Dear Dame June, 

Open letter:  Your failure to produce a risk assessment justifying the approval of injections against SARS-CoV-2 for people under 18 years of age 

On April 28 I wrote to you requesting a copy of the risk assessment which I assumed you must certainly have carried out prior to approving the incompletely tested medications against SARS-CoV-2 for children as young as five years of age.   

I asked you to send this information within 20 working days.  That period has now elapsed without a response to my request or an acknowledgement of my email. 

It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to provide me with a copy of the document requested. 

We parents and grandparents must therefore conclude that:  

1. You have approved an experimental treatment for our young families without carrying out and recording a thorough risk/benefit analysis for the age group in question; or  

2. You did carry out such an analysis, but are reluctant to make it public because its conclusions do not support approval of the medications in question. 

Where you have remained silent, however, others have stepped in to fill the gap. Doctors for Covid Ethics have now produced a risk/benefit analysis for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, in relation to children and adolescents: exactly the kind of analysis that we had every right to expect from your own organisation.  

This analysis concludes that the medications under investigation are neither necessary, nor effective, nor safe for prescription to the age group in question.  It also ‘addresses the risk of genotoxicity of the mRNA vaccines, which according to recent experimental evidence of their integration into host cell genomes must be considered urgent’. 

I note from your public meeting in February this year that the MHRA, in its headlong rush to become a ‘world-class regulatory agency’, is planning to build on the ‘success’ of the Covid injection roll-out by fast-tracking a succession of ‘100-day vaccines’ tweaked into being on computers, shortening the time necessary for approval by using the public as ‘real-time’ guinea pigs. Any checks on medium to long-term safety, it seems, are to be thrown to the winds.  

The steadily accumulating numbers of serious adverse reactions to the present experimental treatments argue against these foolhardy proposals.   

As the numbers of deaths and injuries following injection grow, it is becoming clear that the genuine successes against Covid have come not from pharmaceutical innovations or top-down diktats by centralised bureaucracies kow-towing to the World Health Organisation, but from the cross-border co-operation of dedicated doctors all over the world who have faced censorship, smears, and even loss of their livelihoods, as they relied on tried and trusted medicines and years of solid experience to devise the early-treatment protocols which have saved so many lives and which, but for the intervention of those charged with assuring our safety, might have saved so many more. 

The facts could not be clearer. In future, the MHRA should respect the precautionary principle.  Meanwhile, you should lose no time in withdrawing approval for the injection of our children with unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe experimental substances whose long-term effects on young people with their lives before them will for many years remain unknown. 

Yours sincerely, etc 

Gillian Dymond 

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.

Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond
Gillian Dymond is 78, a mother and grandmother living in the north-east of England.

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.