16 June, 2021 — 21st Century Newswire
By NEWS WIRE
Not a day goes by that the UK government’s team of experts isn’t announcing some new pivot on ‘The Science’ of COVID-19. Increasingly, their decrees are becoming more arbitrary, and rather conspicuously geared towards leveraging even more restrictions, and driving record sales of corporate vaccine.
Earlier this week, the government’s Chief Medical Officer and self-styled vaccinologist, Chris Whitty (pictured above), boldly stated that the nation’s youth may need to get vaccinated – in order to ensure their education ‘can continue without disruption.’
His statement is incredibly misleading because it wrongly infers that there’s a COVID pandemic among children, and that the only solution to this alleged crisis is to vaccinate them, all of them. The only problem is that neither idea is true, according to almost all available data and peer reviewed studies. But for some reason, these facts do not seem to deter politicians from pushing the current break-neck agenda.
So if the current political obsession to vaccinate children with the experimental COVID is jab is not based on any science, then what is it based on?
Not surprising, Whitty and his cohort routinely omits the real science: that children are statistically at near zero risk of every getting ill from the dreaded COVID-19. This is well known by many, and should be a central consideration in any qualified health professional’s calculus on whether children need to be jabbed en mass with what is effectively an unlicensed experimental gene therapy-based injection. Unfortunately, it’s always pushed to the back of the docket.
Moreover, it’s hard to call it a vaccine in any traditional sense of the word. Both the manufactures and the government openly admit that their new range of COVID jabs do not provide recipients with immunity, nor do they stop people from transmitting the virus after they are infected. The only consistent claim by manufacturers is that their products “reduce symptoms.” Not much a vaccine.
More crucially though is the fact that an entirely new risk is being introduced into childrens’ health situation – the very real risk of severe adverse reactions, injuries and even death, from completely unproven pharmaceutical products. Why would anyone wish to do that, especially those who have taken a Hippocratic oath “to do no harm”?
It’s incredible how this fundamental point hardly factors into the analysis of those in high places pushing these jabs, especially with respect to administering them to children.
Ironically (or not), the one group who has been the most militant in pushing for school closures and jabbing the children has been the teachers unions and those referred to as ‘school leaders.’
The UK Telegraph reports…
Asked whether Covid jabs would be rolled out to children, Prof Chris Whitty said the “wider question” was about whether this would help limit the disruption the virus was causing to their schooling.
His remarks come as the head of Britain’s biggest teaching union said children should be fully vaccinated before returning to school in September.
If the Government decides to vaccinate schoolchildren, this should happen “as quickly as possible”, said Kevin Courtney, the joint general secretary of the National Education Union.
Ministers are awaiting advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) – which insiders expect will recommend the jab for younger teenagers – before they make a final decision.
So where are the regulatory bodies? Where are the checks and balances in government? Some will be surprised to discover that the drive to jab the children is actually being facilitated by the very government agency that’s meant to restrain the pharmaceutical industry and corrupt ministers, that is Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Despite the fact this experimental mRNA gene reprogramming jab (along with the other jabs) was allowed to flood the market on the basis that it was for emergency use only – a temporary authorisation by the MHRA to the supply of specific batches of Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine from December 2020. At the time, this unprecedented feat of deregulation of normal medicine standards was sold to public as necessary in order to “protect the vulnerable” as the main step in the government’s “road map to freedom.”
Rather than stay true to their public health ‘road map,’ since then the government and its corporate media partners have become more aggressive in pushing to vaccinate the entire population, and beyond. Prior to the recent G7 Summit in Cornwall, British PM Boris Johnson announced his plan to “vaccinate the world” with the experimental injections by the end of 2022.
Again, this is beyond anyone normal person could have comprehended a year ago, although some key stakeholders seemed to have foreknowledge that this would be the agenda.
The waving of normal safety study and testing regulations, along with calls to vaccinate the entire global population – is indeed unprecedented in human history. Not to mention the fact that even according to governments’ own statistics, COVID-19 has a survival rate of around 99.97% – roughly 100%. You have to admit, that’s pretty good odds for a pandemic.
Why are political leaders are in such hurry to jab as many people with these problematic products?
Why, when all of the groups being pressured into accepting the genetic injection are not at all art risk of every getting ill, much less dying, from the 2020 seasonal respiratory illness?
One of the main agents pushing this authoritarian vaccine agenda is UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who last month announced that the UK government had already purchased enough of the experimental mRNA Pfizer injections to inoculate all children over the age of 12. This is clear proof that Hancock had already anticipated this would become policy.
LEGALISED CHILD ABUSE: Despite the fact that children are not ‘super spreaders’ of COVID, over-zealous teachers and school administrators have forced them to wear masks and other plastic gear.
Hancock also appears to working hand-in-hand with Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, told The Telegraph newspaper, “If JCVI look at the ethical questions and if they think on the ethical balance – and the MHRA say there is a high degree of safety – then in an ideal world we think it would be better if kids were vaccinated and had three weeks immunity before they come back to school in September.”
Is there any actual scientific basis for his statement? It seems that Courtney falsely described the rising number PCR and Lateral Flow ‘positive’ tests as “cases” – when in fact, they are not. A real case of COVID-19 would be a clinically diagnosed infection and disease, complete with symptoms and other identifiable markers. But since the beginning of the crisis, this cheap PCR parlour trick has been adopted as a standard government tool in falsely driving-up COVID ‘case’ numbers and ‘deaths with COVID.’ This routine deception has already been well documented, and yet officials and members of the mainstream media continue to parrot the false ‘cases‘ narrative because it is essential to justifying ever so-called ‘mitigation’ policy; from lockdowns, to school and business closures, to masks and social distancing, shutting the country’s borders and restricting citizens’ freedom of travel.
Later, teachers union head Courtney admitted recognising there are “ethical questions” because children “don’t by and large get seriously ill.”
“So if there is a risk from the vaccine, even if it is an incredibly small risk, an ethical question is raised about whether you give them something with a risk,” conceded Courtney.
But this appears is always treated as an afterthought by education leaders and high priests of ‘The Science’, all of who seem obsessed with imposing a one-size-fits-all vaccine solution to ‘the pandemic’ – a pandemic which appears to have left the building last April 2020 according the government’s own official statistics.
Still, the virtual pandemic continues.
Even further into the report, Whitty also admits that any decision to jab children should be made “with caution”, although there seems to very little of that going on in government at the moment.
“The first is those groups that are actually at high risk of Covid, and I think JCVI will be bringing forward advice on this, and those children specifically should be vaccinated to reduce the risk of them having severe disease and in a very small number of cases – but it does happen – mortality,” he said.
The more critically one looks at this crisis, the more dubious the vaccine narrative becomes.
Absent of any meaningful regulatory oversight, who is left to restrain the government and the forces of Big Pharma?