As the increasingly bizarre sequence of events that is the pandemic takes yet another turn, the question of the morality of vaccinating children has risen to the top of the agenda. Children, and youngsters in general, are at very nearly zero risk from Covid 19. On the other hand, the side effects and consequences of the medical interventions (“vaccines”) recommended by various health authorities and governments are proving to be distinctly troublesome. Given these factors, can we morally justify inflicting these jabs on the younger generation if it merely opens them up to risk and confers little or no benefit on them?
Relative Risk Levels of Covid 19 for Children
Up to mid-February 2021, the Lancet’s own study estimated that the fatality rate from Covid 19 for children was around 0·17 per 100 000. In terms of odds, this works out to approximately 600,000 to 1. Reported deaths following administration of the ‘vaccine’ in the US were 4863 out of 285,000,000 doses given. This figure is likely under-reported, according to some sources. Even given that caveat, it still works out to slightly under 60,000 to 1, ie ten times worse than the risk to children from Covid.
Given such figures, what parent would wish to submit their child to these experimental medical interventions?
Risks to Children from being forced to take the ‘vaccine’
We are still in the relatively early stages of a Worldwide, and highly profitable, rollout of ‘vaccines’ for Covid 19. As time passes, more and more problems are emerging. This is hardly surprising, given the rushed nature of the clinical trials. The fact that in the US the ‘vaccines’ only have Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) should be a warning signal to all. In many countries, the Pharmaceutical companies involved have attempted to ensure that they are immune from prosecution should unforseen consequences emerge, an all-too-likely scenario.
One such unforeseen consequence seems to be the emergence of a substantial number of young men suffering from myocarditis following the vaccination. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle. You may also hear it referred to as cardiomyopathy. The sufferer may experience chest pain, shortage of breath, and a restriction in their ability to exercise. This particular problem seems to be attached to the ‘vaccines’ that use mRNA technology (Pfizer and Moderna (x).
A range of neurological problems has been observed in the days and weeks following administration of the Covid 19 ‘vaccines’. As ever with this subject, the mainstream media and internet seem more concerned with hiding these problems than with being transparent. Away from mainstream media, reports of such incidents are alarmingly frequent. One Canadian doctor, for example, reported that at least 6 of 900 indigenous people vaccinated locally came to his surgery suffering from the effects of a range of neurological ills following vaccination for Covid 19 (x).
Despite press aversion, there have still been many reports of people suffering from anaphylaxis, extensive migraines, bell’s palsy, paralysis, and convulsions. Some of these have lead to ongoing conditions, others have resulted in the death of the patient. Much is being done to deflect attention away from these problems but they are there and they are serious(x).
From the very earliest days of the release of the ‘vaccines’ but the Astra Zeneca version, in particular, there have been reports of blood clots. It is now quite clear that this particular ‘vaccine’ comes with a danger of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia (VTT) or, to put it more simply, thrombosis.
The full mechanism causing the thrombotic reaction is not fully understood yet, but it seems to be a particular problem with the utilisation of the adenovirus vector. This is why cases of blood clots are found so commonly in the Astra Zeneca ‘vaccine’ as opposed to the others. Despite there being regular reports of the problem, the mainstream media reports almost invariably downplayed by the mainstream media, are coming in from all over the globe.
The European reporting agencies had already reported around 170 cases of clots by the start of April. In Norway, blood clots were reported in 1 in every 25,000 ‘vaccine’ recipients under 65. In a darkly amusing way, that same figure, 1 in 25,000, is about the same as the chances of death from Covid for the same group. Given that, and given the other potential risks involved, the case for mass vaccination begins to look somewhat thin (x).
The Moral Argument(s)
As it is fully clear now that the danger from the ‘vaccines’ is likely to be far higher than from the virus, what is the moral case for using such experimental treatments on children? The main argument for such an imposition seems to run along the lines that because adults who live with children may be at a greater risk of infection we should be vaccinating the kids. We know that the vast majority of those adults would only have a chance of around 1 in 25,000 of death from the virus, in any case, this seems to be a somewhat dubious justification at best.
The transmission argument centers around the notion that children can transmit the virus to adults, hence we should be vaccinating the kids to prevent this. Recently, however, a large meta-analysis in a periodical called ‘Clinical Infectious Diseases’ demonstrated that children are less likely than adults to be the source of household outbreaks (x). Further evidence came from North Carolina where there was not even a single case of viral transmission from child to teacher recorded during a study of 90,000 school children. It seems like something of an over-reaction to be exposing children to the risks of a relatively untried ‘vaccine’ in order to obtain such negligible (or downright non-existent) benefits for the adult population.
Another argument used is that vaccinating the entire population will allow us to be released from the restrictions of our freedoms that Covid 19 has brought. I would point out, in answer to this idea, that it’s not Covid that is restricting our freedoms but the reactions of our governments. In practice, it would seem that however many are vaccinated it is never enough to meet an ever-receding target.
In the UK, we were told that once the vulnerable had received the jab we could go back to normal. That happened, but the measures continued. Then we were told that once a sufficient proportion of the general population had been vaccinated the measures would be eased. Again that was achieved, yet the event was not accompanied by an easing of the restrictions. These measures seem to act like the proverbial carrot in front of the donkey. Although we are encouraged to keep chasing after the carrot, somehow we never get to actually consume the much-desired vegetable.
Again and again, throughout this crisis, we have witnessed the application of a certain moral pressure on people to act in a certain way. In effect, what we have is a form of coercion. This is not pleasant when applied to adults with the aim of pushing them into making a choice they may not otherwise have made (ie, submit to a relatively risky ‘vaccine’). It seems even more reprehensible in this particular case though, as what is being asked for is for parents to submit their own children to dubious and potentially dangerous medical interventions.
A further argument used to support the notion of vaccinating children is herd immunity. Again, this would appear to be superfluous as to achieve this the UK would only need to vaccinate 60 to 70 per cent of the population, a figure that we are pretty close to already.
A final argument, but one that I do not subscribe to, is the notion that the UK should not be giving ‘vaccines’ to relatively safe children while other countries have large amounts of vulnerable adults that remain unvaccinated. This argument comes with the presupposition that the ‘vaccines’ are the best way of addressing the situation in the first place. As we have discussed in a previous blog, there exists a better way of approaching the issue. The relative safety, cheapness, and efficacy of Ivermectin, a fact seemingly ignored here in the UK and the US but readily apparent to many other governments now, would avoid the need for ‘vaccines’ whatsoever. Secondly, there is a political assumption made that somehow the UK government has a responsibility for events in, say, Nigeria, Uzbekistan or Tuvalu. It does not, although it suits those wishing to expand globalist agendas that this is the case. Whenever we read such arguments, we need to be aware of the presuppositions and assumptions built into them, often quite deliberately.
Following some of the notorious medical experiments conducted by the Nazis and the Japanese during World War 2, the international community agreed on a set of guidelines that seek to limit or eliminate the possibility of such medical malpractice occurring in the future. These fall under the Geneva and Nuremberg Conventions.
Nuremberg 1: Voluntary consent is important
This is being routinely circumvented by attempting to make life more and more difficult for those who do not wish to take the ‘vaccine’. Oddly, Israel of all countries has been particularly lax in this regard. They are currently using a form of vaccine segregation whereby it is close to impossible for the unvaccinated to lead a normal life (x). To be fair, some progress seems to have been made in recent days but it is rather alarming how such coercion was so readily enforced in the first place.
Nuremberg 2: “Yields with fruitful results that cannot be produced by other means“
Given that the ‘vaccines’ do not stop the recipient given the intervention immunity from Covid 19, and does not stop the spread of the virus, the justification for using the ‘vaccines’ seems to be quite thin. Ivermectin, in particular, seems to be both much more economic and far more effective. Currently, there is a massive disinformation campaign underway to prevent people from becoming aware of this intervention or to discourage them if they do become aware.
Nuremberg 6: “The risk should never exceed the benefit“
This is perhaps the most applicable part of the Nuremberg Code in the case of children. Given how incredibly unlikely it is that children will be harmed by Covid 19, the risk of taking the ‘vaccines’ seems to be completely unjustified. In the USA, UK, Europe, and South Korea, deaths from COVID-19 in children are vanishingly rare events. The risks from the ‘vaccines’ are, on the other hand, all too real and, I would argue, statistically, much greater in the case of children.
As a father of an infant boy, the notion of exposing him needlessly to the relatively unquantifiable and, to some extent, unknown dangers of the ‘vaccines’ seems dubious at the very least. Before writing this blog I will admit to being fairly unconvinced both of the need for such an intervention and the morality of such a measure. The more I investigated, the more convinced I became that such actions cannot be practically or morally justified. The relative mortality rates for children from Covid 19 compared to those from the ‘vaccines’ seem to me to be a convincing argument in themselves. Beyond that, though, I know that as a parent I would find myself very unwilling to expose my child to such risks without a very strong moral compulsion. As far as I can see, no such moral argument currently exists.
Since finishing this article a week or so ago, the propaganda campaign in the UK has been intensified in an attempt to frighten the public with talk of variants that, conveniently for those that want to vaccinate children, are more commonly found in the young. The sheer cycnicism of the manipulation taking place should be obvious to all by now, but my guess is that these fear tactics will work on the majority who will soon be baying for children to be jabbed, whether the kids need it or not (x).