As covered last week, the US has set about vaccinating children with an untested Moderna vaccine, to see what happens to them. This is despite a study published in October last year which shows that vaccinated children are not as healthy and not as free from ailments as those who refused vaccination.
This week the International Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment (ICAN) had a legal victory over the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) when the CDC was forced to remove the heading “Vaccines do not cause autism” from its website. It was something for which ICAN’s lawyers have been fighting over the last three years.
Covid-19 has really brought the fact-checkers out from under their stones especially with regard to vaccinating children. Full Fact is typical. Its mission, like the missions of other so-called fact-checkers, is to present a purportedly true slant on a particular article or media release to make it appear inaccurate.
In the case of the ongoing vaccine madness against children the site in question is SOTT (Sign of the Times). SOTT has a far superior reputation for honest reporting than the corporate-owned BBC, a channel on which Full Fact relies for its integrity – together with Amnesty International. The non-partisan BBC has had plenty to say about why we should all get vaccinated but little if anything of substance to say about the many adverse reactions to vaccinations. These serious medical anomolies, including deaths, might just as well not exist as far as the BBC is concerned.
SOTT’s short article, by Pam Vernon, makes no mention of UK vaccinations and links the original Gates-funded World Health Organisation (WHO) brochure from 2014 concerning the vaccination of African children against malaria. Pam Vernon simply points out that children were being vaccinated without parental consent by simply turning up at school on vaccination day. The WHO promoted this project, which it describes as a study, and which has been going on for more than a decade. This extract is from WHO’s promotional brochure.
3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.
In a devious ploy of ascribing guilt for something Pam Vernon of SOTT never said, Full Fact – which remember is independent and impartial – says, or at least its reporter, Grace Rahman, says:
In the UK, sending your child to school doesn’t automatically imply you’ve consented for them to get a vaccine.
But then SOTT never said it did. False accusations of this nature are from the magic tricks’ box of trolls. That did not stop Full Fact from claiming the SOTT article to be false.
What really seems to have got WHO, and its fact-checkers, worried is an article in February’s BMJ (British Medical Journal) which accused that global organisation of being in “serious breach of international ethical standards”. It condemned the WHO study which was exploiting uninformed African parents in order to have children surreptitiously vaccinated with the vaccine Mosquirix, allegedly an anti-malarial vaccine.
The efficacy of Mosquirix against malaria seems yet to be established but what has been established is a tenfold increase in meningitis in those vaccinated together with twice the likelihood of death in girls and an increased risk of cerebral malaria. What is more it is still being regarded by the WHO as a pilot scheme after more than ten years.
The vaccine is currently limited to pilot implementation because of residual safety concerns from previous clinical trials, including: a tenfold rate of meningitis in those who received the vaccine versus those who did not, “increased cerebral malaria cases, and a doubling in the risk of death in girls.”
Beatrice Brown writes:
Despite the inherent social value of this pilot implementation study by the WHO, this social value should not be used to undermine appropriate ethical standards for research, particularly when children are the participants and there have been demonstrated, serious risks in prior clinical trials.
Apparently it was the booster dose and not the first vaccination that led to increased mortality in girls. There is much contention as to whether this is a pilot study or actual research. Bioethicist, Charles Weijer, says “implied consent is no consent at all.” He is not alone in his criticism. Word from within Africa itself, from Dr. Sackey, is quite scathing as to the benefits, if any, of the Mosquirix vaccine.
In a June 2019 article written for Ghana Medical Journal titled ‘Musings on malaria morbidity and mortality after the new Mosquirix vaccine’, Dr Adziri H Sackey criticises the WHO programme and says: “When the existing malaria control measures are implemented more effectively, the vaccine in its current form does not offer any measurable mortality advantages,” adding: “This means that if there were a willingness to implement malaria control measures intensively, there would be no need to expose our children to the unknown effects of a new vaccine.”
As the Full Fact rebuttal stands it amounts to geographical superiority of UK residents over Africans. Indeed Grace Rahman introduced the UK into the debate suggestive of the concept that because this “implied consent” happened in Africa we in the west need not concern ourselves.
Full Fact, which checks Facebook posts, claims to be independent and impartial. Much of its funding comes from Facebook, Google, Nuffield Foundation and other big players in the globalisation of their human vaccine-modifying slave-project. The Nuffield Trust works alongside the BBC in a cabal to privatise the NHS, currently being brought to its knees by this non-existent COVID-19 pandemic.