THE FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN – UKFA and Leave Our Kids Alone

All summer the people here at the UK Freedom Alliance have been fighting hard to avoid one thing and that is the wholesale injection of children at secondary school. We believe that everyone should have the right to choose what they do with there body, no matter how hard it is to understand peoples compliance with these experimental gene therapies in an age when anyone with a decent phone can find the truth with just a little effort and critical thinking. But the one area where we thought even the vaccinated would baulk at following their governments around the world was when the governments decided to give it to their children.

When the JCVI released the news that they were not going to recommend the “JAB” to any child under 16 we were very happy. It seemed that we had really achieved something long lasting and we could now breathe a little before entering the fray on some other point. All summer we have been mounting a two pronged attack using different levels of Notices of Liability to help us.

With the aid of our wonderful legal team led by Anna de Buisseret we wrote some very special notices for the government ministers and JCVI and the ones that were sent to all the Headmasters, Deputy Heads and Chairpersons of the Board of Governors.

In collaboration with Nancy Mamini-Serna and her fantastic team at Leave Our Kids Alone (they did all the Hard work) We managed to send out these notices of Liability to over 6880 Secondary schools and 540 colleges and Universities.

We knew our NOL’s were hitting home because they led to the JCVI’s first rebellion and the sacking of Matt Hancock and the tactful withdrawal of his successor Sajid Javid. This did not please Boris Johnson at all and he sacked half of the JCVI. It didn’t help his mood at all when he had to do a reversal on students being jabbed to attend lectures. At first, the JVCI made all the right noises and had t concede 16-18 years olds, because they already have Gillick competence at that age over marriage. but it seems another round of notices did the trick. In the meantime Leave Our Kids Alone sent a notice of liability to every educational establishment for over 11, under 18 in the country. This made the Head teachers pressurise the JCVI and this was the result.

JCVI issues updated advice on COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 12 to 15

The JCVI has reviewed the evidence on vaccinating children aged 12 to 15 who do not have underlying health conditions that put them at increased risk from severe COVID-19.

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

It is not within the JCVI’s remit to consider the wider societal impacts of vaccination, including educational benefits. The government may wish to seek further views on the wider societal and educational impacts from the Chief Medical Officers of the UK 4 nations.

For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions. The committee has recommended the expansion of the list of conditions to which the offer applies for at-risk 12 to 15 year olds.

There is evidence of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. This is an extremely rare adverse event. The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed.

Professor Wei Shen Lim, Chair of COVID-19 Immunisation for the JCVI, said:

Children aged 12 to 15 years old with underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 should be offered COVID-19 vaccination. The range of underlying health conditions that apply has recently been expanded.

For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.

Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge.

When deciding on childhood immunisations, the JCVI has consistently maintained that the main focus should be the benefits to children themselves, balanced against any potential harms to them from vaccination.

As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accumulates, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. This data may not be available for several months.

Previously, the JCVI advised that children with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression, profound and multiple learning disabilities, and severe learning disabilities or who are on the learning disability register, should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

Following consideration of updated data on hospital admissions and deaths, the JCVI advises that this offer should be expanded to include children aged 12 to 15 with the following:

  • haematological malignancy
  • sickle cell disease
  • type 1 diabetes
  • congenital heart disease
  • other health conditions as described in Annex A

Children with poorly controlled asthma and less common conditions, often due to congenital or metabolic defects where respiratory infections can result in severe illness, should also be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

Whilst this was great it appears they have left the way clear for Sage and the government to have the last say, here is a piece from the Times

“The UK moved closer to giving Covid jabs to younger teenagers on Friday after the government’s vaccine advisory body ceded authority on the decision to the country’s top medical officers. Britain has become an international outlier among its peers in recent months in maintaining its position not to offer shots to all children aged 12 to 15. Among the 24 largest countries which have vaccinated more than half of their populations, the UK is one of only two — along with Sweden — yet to start vaccinating this age group.

The stance is based on decisions by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), a body of academics and clinicians whose advice on UK vaccine policy has garnered international attention. The panel on Friday repeated its view that the health benefits of jabs for younger teenagers when weighed against possible side-effects were not yet clear. Instead it took the unprecedented step of passing the decision on to England’s chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty and his three counterparts from the UK’s devolved administrations.

The JCVI’s move comes as political pressure has been growing to jab children over 12 as schools return from summer holidays.

“The nightmare scenario is that while [the JCVI] are carefully doing their due diligence, that we get another wave as it gets colder. It moves through schools and then straight to the rest of the community,” one senior official said before the announcement.

The response from the CMOs is expected to come back “as soon as next week” according to those with knowledge of the process as political pressure is growing.  They are widely expected to give the green light to a rollout, not least because they have been asked to take into account “broader educational and societal impacts” than the JCVI’s remit permits. We knew that JCVI couldn’t consider educational factors months ago, so I suspect there’s some political pressure at play with schools reopening Senior former health official Anthony Harnden, deputy chair of JCVI, denied the panel had been pressured by UK health secretary Sajid Javid.

“There is no precedent for this, but it isn’t the secretary of state wanting to seek further advice, it’s us as a committee feeling we don’t have the expertise to assess the educational aspects.” But a senior former health official told the FT it was “a weird and messy move,” adding: “We knew that JCVI couldn’t consider educational factors months ago, so I suspect there’s some political pressure at play with schools reopening.”

A committee member, who asked not to be named, said they now worried that the “muddled” decision-making process would damage vaccine confidence for both the Covid-19 vaccine and other jabs. “We have done our health-related brief to the best of our ability over long hours and now it’s out of our hands,” they said. The JCVI’s Covid-19 chair, Wei Shen Lim, explained that the benefit of vaccinating healthy children was “considered too small to support universal Covid-19 vaccination” on health grounds. Gathering data on adverse events could, he said, take months. The committee has concerns about the safety of the two main mRNA vaccines used in younger adults — BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna — which have been associated with heart inflammation in one in every 20,000 young people, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a result, the JCVI has only recommended that vaccines should be available to 12 to 15-year-olds with some serious conditions and severely weakened immune systems. On Friday it expanded the list to include type one diabetes and sickle cell disease, bringing a further 200,000 into eligibility. Yet most other countries have made a different assessment of the risks. Professor Grace Lee, chair of the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the JCVI’s US counterpart, said: “I’m a paediatrician . . . I see kids hospitalised and I’ve seen kids die from Covid . . . it’s a preventable infection . . . We are not good at predicting who is going to get sick from it.” The JCVI has unusual legal authority. If it had not consented to moving this decision to another body, the government would have found it difficult to over-rule it.

The committee is risk-averse about whether treatment is always necessary. Robert Dingwall, a recent member of the committee, said: “The JCVI is full of experience and knowledge, but they’re not cheerleaders for vaccinating people. They do not believe that you should be giving foreign substances into people’s bodies unless the benefits are very clear.” This is particularly true with children. A flu vaccine distributed during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic was later found to be associated with narcolepsy, a rare sleep disorder, in children who were given the drug. That decision still weighs on the panel, one current member admitted. “The unknown unknowns weigh heavily on us. We’re always aware that history might come back and bite us.” Devi Sridhar, professor of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, thinks doctors’ differing narratives of the dangers the Delta variant poses to children explain the contrasting vaccine policies. “Paediatricians in the UK seem not that concerned, which possibly explains why the JCVI has been much more passive.”

Surely everyone could understand the total futility of giving this gene therapy to children, we thought no one would be that scared of COVID that they would sacrifice their children. When you view the statistics, or follow the science, as the bought and paid for scientists of SAGE are constantly bleating out. If you believe there is a virus out there, although no virus bearing the name Sars(COV2) has EVER been isolated to the gold standard. But, just for a second lets believe there is a VIRUS, then it is certainly not very dangerous to children.

Looking at the figures, government scientific figures at that, we find that children only have a tiny risk with only one in a thousand failing a COVID test. Children have very strong immune systems and since this “Scamdemic” began only 290 children were admitted to intensive care with COVID (would it be churlish of me to say that every single one of these without exception had an underlying condition or comorbidity) these 290 children mean that even if a child contracted COVID there chances of ending up in acute care was 1 in 50,000 giving it a survival rate 0f 99.997% survival rate for young people. In Britain, since March last year, the government lists that 25 children under 18 died within 28 days of a positive COVID test but every single one of them died with a comorbidity or pre existing medical condition.

So where are we, yesterday totally elated that everything was working now totally up for the new fight. All parents have to send a notice of liability (found on the UKFA Shop) to the secondary school their children are attending to strengthen the strangle hold we have on the Headteachers and their union. all of these people need to be held personally responsible and all of a sudden the schools where they hope these vaccinations can take place are forbidden to them.