by Chauncey Tinker – 10 Sep 2021
The case against jabbing children with the COVID-19 injections is getting stronger by the day, consider the following points all backed up by statements in BBC articles (and other official sources):
The jabs in general supposedly have to be repeated because only one is not very effective on its own (that's what we're told). From the BBC:
What's more, the protection even from 2 jabs supposedly wanes over time according to some reports (so how long before we go to 3 jabs and then eventually to regular jabs)? From the BBC:
There are even some reports that a new variant called Mu, that is more vaccine resistant, is emerging. From the UN:
Even the JCVI has admitted that there's no medical reason to jab younger children in the 12-15 age range. From the BBC:
However the government is hellbent on jabbing children anyway, and once again the govt. is deferring responsibility for the decision to others, this time it's the Chief Medical Officers apparently who get to decide. From the government's website:
The public has been brainwashed by the media into believing that even people who are asymptomatic may be carrying a risk of infecting other people, and this belief has been used to justify jabbing the children, but there is evidence that this is inaccurate. Here is a study from the CDC:
In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission.
In other words it's only really symptomatic and PREsymptomatic people who carry any significant risk, and there is more risk of transmission during the presymptomatic period than during the symptomatic period according to the above study. The risks of transmission have therefore been greatly exaggerated because it only usually occurs in a short period, and then mostly in people who go on to develop symptoms. The same study also states:
Some studies may be prone to misclassify presymptomatic cases as asymptomatic, leading to heterogeneous reporting of SAR of asymptomatic cases,
The risks of side effects from the jabs, particularly inflammation around the heart, are gradually becoming public knowledge. Even the BBC has admitted that there is a risk, and also an increased risk of this after a second Pfizer jab, and this was stated as a reason why only one jab was being recommended for 16-17 year olds ("for now" at least).
The advice today is to give 16 and 17-year-olds their first dose and then wait for more details.
One reason is the risk of inflamed heart tissue (myocarditis or pericarditis) is higher after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Furthermore a syndrome called 'Multi Inflammatory Syndrome in Children' (acronym MIS-C) has been newly identified in 2020, this seems to be an issue that is specific to children. There have only been around 40 deaths from this syndrome reported in the US so far (it is claimed these cases are connected with sars-cov-2), this is obviously a very small number in a population of over 330,000,000. However concerns are being raised that this syndrome, that affects many organs not just the heart (including the brain and the liver), may also be a side effect of some of the injections. Here is the letter that J. Patrick Whelan MD PhD wrote to the FDA warning about the potential risks of this syndrome (he works in the DIVISION OF IMMUNOLOGY/ALLERGY/RHEUMATOLOGY, Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles):
I am a pediatric specialist caring for children with the multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C). I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer) have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.
Concerns about the possibly toxic effects of the spike protein contained in the injections have also been expressed by Dr Robert Malone, who claims he invented the mRNA technology being used in some of the injections (including the Pfizer jab rolled out already for 16-17 year olds in the UK). Sites including Wikipedia and so-called "fact-checking" websites have been going into overdrive trying to discredit Dr Malone and his concerns, and they claim that he isn't really the inventor of the technology, but it seems to be beyond question that he did at the very least play a pivotal role in the early pioneering research. Surely therefore his opinion should at least count for something when people are assessing the risks?
(Please note I have made some minor changes in this section).
The 5 years immediately prior to 2020 had historically low death rates never seen before, people in the media have been deliberately ignoring the fact that as recently as 2008 we had a higher (age adjusted) death rate in the UK than we did in 2020, so it is questionable whether what occurred in 2020 can even reasonably be called a pandemic in any case.
Even at the highest peak of the spike in 2020 (22,038 deaths in one week), the numbers of people dying per week overall was only roughly about 1 per 5000 (England and Wales) of the population above the normal weekly rate of recent years. Most of these people who sadly died were older than the average life expectancy. Not many weeks later the weekly death figure had fallen back to normal levels and even fell below the 5 year average at times (during the summer of 2020).
That highest spike in 2020 was admittedly somewhat unusual compared to data from the 5 years prior to 2020, but fluctuations in the weekly total of deaths in the UK are perfectly normal, for example in January 2018 there was a spike where the weekly deaths hit 15,050 (England and Wales), which isn't so far away from the highest spike in the winter of 2020/21 which hit 18,676 at the peak. Again to put these numbers in their proper context, that is only a difference in the weekly figure of roughly 1 death per 16,000 of the total population. Even then the assumption that this difference was entirely caused by COVID-19 is debatable as well.
Can we really describe this statistically tiny number of deaths as a pandemic? I will take a more detailed look at these numbers in the next post.
There's no medical benefit to the children from jabbing them with these injections because they aren't at significant risk from the illness, but there is some known evidence of side effects including inflammation of the heart and some further concern about potential risk of MIS-C. If you accept there is some necessity to jab children just to protect very old people (which seems to be a dubious claim anyway because the risk of asymptomatic transmission is very low), then how long before children are put at the increased risk that apparently comes with multiple jabs (because we are told a single jab isn't supposedly effective)? Otherwise what's the point of jabbing them at all if a single jab isn't effective? Finally, why are children to be put at risk from the jabs at all if they themselves are not at risk from COVID-19? In short the question we should perhaps be asking parents is:
Are You Feeling Lucky, Mum And Dad?
I'm not anti-vaxx, I'm pro-science; there's no scientific case for jabbing the children.
From the Daily Sceptic:
The above article refers to this article from the Telegraph:
From the BBC:
From the Hart Group of doctors, Dr Ros Jones's concerns (she's a retired Consultant Paediatrician who went back to work to help during the supposed crisis):
From TCW Defending Freedom:
From the British Medical Journal:
What do you think? Are You Feeling Lucky? Please leave a comment below.