"...what sort of society uses its children as human shields for their grandparents?"
During his speech at the Adelaide Freedom Rally held on 18 December 2021, former doctor Bruce Paix challenged the COVID-19 vaccination rollout, including specific reference to children, asking:
And what are the long-term risks?
Infertility, autoimmune disease, acquired immune deficiency, booster addiction, cancer. What about those? What is the risk of those?
The true answer is, nobody knows. We can't know. No, we haven't had enough time to find out. Most drugs take years or decades to fully approve.
These new untried, untested experimental drugs have been rushed out in a period of months worldwide, under coercion.
And now they want to extend it to our children.
Children have even less risk of serious Covid than even young adults. And they have a lifetime to develop and deal with any side effects that may come up.
The US and UK data says that the risk of serious Covid in children is one in a million.
Why are we doing this?
Good question - why were children vaccinated against a disease of little or no risk to them?
In Australia, the government reports 2.3 million children aged 5-17 years have received a COVID-19 vaccination…
2.3 million children were vaccinated against a group of common generally self-limiting respiratory symptoms of little or no threat to them.
See for example this Daily Mail article from August 2021 which shows teenagers herded up, socially distanced, for their first dose of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, under the gaze of ‘Big Sister’, then NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian:
And why was this happening?
Children were being vaccinated purportedly to protect the elderly, the natural immunity of children was being sacrificed to supposedly protect their grandparents from COVID-19.
How were doctors, nurses and pharmacists obtaining voluntary informed consent for this medical intervention that wasn’t of specific benefit to children?
How could the medical profession cooperate with the unnecessary vaccination of children?
As Bruce Paix asked during his speech in Adelaide in December 2021:
“…what sort of society uses its children as human shields for their grandparents?”
The plan was laid out in a UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology meeting, on 23 June 2020, and reported in The Guardian by Health editor Sarah Boseley on 24 June 2020:
There it was in plain sight, the “Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people” and “children may have to be immunised to protect their grandparents”.
If Covid-19 vaccination wasn’t expected to work in the specific vulnerable group of at-risk older people, why was a ‘vaccine solution’ ever on the table?
Why was there a plan to vaccinate the entire global population against a disease which it was already known wasn’t a serious threat to most people?
How was this mass population ‘vaccine solution’ evaluated and approved?
It seems this was Bill Gates’ plan, he masterminded the ‘race for a coronavirus vaccine’ in 2020, insisting “It’s going to have to go to 7 billion people”.
Isn’t this extraordinary? That a software billionaire was calling the shots on international vaccination policy, and has been for years…
Returning to revelations during the Lords Committee meeting in June 2020…
Arne Akbar, a professor of immunology at University College London, let the cat out of the bag…as recorded in this transcript.
I hate to keep bringing up flies in the ointment. To have a good vaccine is very important, but vaccines do not work very well in older people. This has been shown with many other vaccines in the past-…
The vaccine alone will help the younger people, which will be good, because if the younger people are not infected they will not spread it to the older people. But it will not directly help the older group very much, and they are the people with the most severe disease right now.
It’s remarkable that the titled folk attending this meeting, the Lords, Baronesses and Viscount Matt Ridley, didn’t ask the scientists why a vaccine solution was being pursued if it wasn’t likely to work in the vulnerable group?
Peter Openshaw, a professor of experimental medicine at the infamous Imperial College London, expanded on the scheme:
Sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group.
This is being done with influenza, for example. Over the past few years, the UK has been at the forefront of rolling out the live attenuated vaccine for children, because children amplify the distribution of the virus in the community.
It is possible to see that grandparents are being protected by the vaccination of children that are in school using this very benign, nasally delivered vaccine that causes good protection in the nose and respiratory tract.
Even though children themselves do not always suffer from severe flu, that is a very simple non-injectable form of vaccine that causes wider protection in the community.
So you can get indirect protection using that type of community-based approach to limit the spread.
It’s astonishing that children are being vaccinated against flu to purportedly protect their grandparents.
And that it was planned to inject children with Covid-19 vaccines, again purportedly for the benefit of the elderly.
How can this medical interference with mass populations of children, who themselves are not at serious risk of Covid-19 or flu, be ethically justifiable?
I raised this matter in my BMJ rapid response, published in August 2020, see: Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly?
Why didn’t Viscount Ridley and the Lords and Baronesses at the Lords Committee meeting express alarm that children were being vaccinated against diseases of no threat to them?
We have no idea of the long-term consequences of these medical interventions children do not need.
This is a global experiment in progress without valid consent.
In September 2022, I challenged Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar about the highly questionable vaccination of children to purportedly protect the elderly, asking if this had been put before an ethics committee, and whether the deliberations on this important ethical matter were openly accessible.
I received no response from Peter Openshaw nor Arne Akbar…
This is the situation we face - the science and medical establishment refuses to be accountable to the people for their influence on vaccination policy.
And under the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill in Australia, the science and medical establishment, along with the mainstream media, is likely to be protected for their statements on vaccination policy, while people such as me and others questioning vaccination policy are under threat of censorship, see:
The ever-increasing load of lucrative vaccine products being imposed on the global community has come to a head now with the Covid debacle.
The Mis/Disinformation Bill which threatens free discussion on taxpayer-funded vaccination policy must be rejected.
The lid has to be blown off this thing… We must demand an urgent investigation into the unnecessary vaccination of children with flu and COVID-19 vaccine products, along with an exposé of the entire ‘womb to tomb’ vaccination schedule, which is mired in conflicts of interest.