Director of Public Health warns of the dangers of 'Long Covid'.
One in 10 positive cases have ‘Long-Covid’ – Gibraltar.
It seems the jab-happy medical tyrants are hell-bent on creating a reason to get those under 12 vaccinated.
How long did it really take the government to approve the experimental jab for those 12 and over? Not long.
And while the UK and Gibraltar government say they will wait on JVCI's recommendation to do so, do we really think that JVCI's recommendation will take? Current headlines read they are not recommending it; and this may cause people to let their guards down.
LucijaTomljenovic has presented documentation which appears to show that the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) has made continuous efforts over many years to withhold critical data from parents and health practitioners on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations in order to reach overall vaccination rates which the JCVI deemed necessary for “herd immunity,” a vaccination concept which does not rest on solid scientific evidence – https://ukreloaded.com/vaccine-injured-children-a-uk-tale-of-neglect-corruption-and-cover-up/
How much of JCVI's weighing back and fro is "just for show".
Propaganda to go for the children is increasing - from them being blamed for the next wave to "protecting" them from this thing called "long covid" (What ever happened to the common cold/flu?).
Look at the JVCI's argument for delaying the jabs for those under 12. It's weak and given enough time they will "work it out" that the benefits of jabbing them outweigh the risks. Evil people:
For a health system to offer any vaccine to a child, two key ethical questions must be asked. First, do the benefits outweigh the risks? Second, if the vaccine is in short supply, does someone else need it more? Careful attention to both questions suggests that we should not yet roll out covid-19 vaccination to otherwise healthy children.
Is that the only key ethical questions they can come up with? Public health officials look at a benefits/risks assessment, which means a certain number can be harmed and it's still considered a "good" thing. So when your child is the one paralyzed from the jab, you should think that is is for the good of all. Next, they think about the supply of jabs. Seriously? If this thing actually protected children, you'd think they'd be prioritized. Besides, they have other means to programme children without giving them this dangerous jab. It's been done in the schools for years.
Covid-19 vaccines in adults have been remarkably effective.
What a bold-face LIE. Keep up on the negative adverse reactions from Yellowcard. Just because MSM isn't covering them, doesn't mean you can't find the information.
There is good reason to expect that the same will be true in children.
That's conjecture, but from a medical official is sounds plausible, right?
First, we know less about the risks. Randomised trials to date have given vaccines to only about 3500 adolescents. These trials are not designed to identify rare side effects. For example, the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently identified a risk of myocarditis in adolescents who have received mRNA based covid-19 vaccines an estimated 56-69 cases per million vaccine doses. We do not know whether other complications will emerge.
Exactly, they don't know. These are experimental jabs and trials aren't over for the world population until 2023.
Second, the potential benefit in children is much smaller. Most children who get covid-19 have mild illness. There are low risks of hospital admission and death (around two per million children in the UK), as well as rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome.
They know children don't really suffer. That's why the propaganda is heightened with variants and long-Covid.
However, serious illness from covid is much less common than in adults. Moreover, young children and schools seem to play a limited role in transmission. Vaccination of children would have marginal benefit in protecting others, particularly once people at higher risk are immunised.
Please remember this stance – because it will change, like they changed it about pregnant women and like they did about wearing face-masks.
There are also indirect effects (for example, interrupted education) and potential long covid.
Pulling out a reason that has nothing to do with their health, which they can weigh toward the benefits of jabbing the young. If they really were concerned with them missing school, why the lockdowns, which has proven to be about control not health; and children are suffering in other ways because of lockdowns, especially mentally.
They then plant "long covid" as a reason to jab the young. And Gibraltar's Sohail Bhatti does his evil part by planting that ideal on The Rock.
Now read this carefully:
Before we roll out a covid-19 vaccine for children, we should scrutinise safety data carefully and wait if there is any uncertainty. Crucially, if reports of serious complications arise they could harm our wider immunisation programme. Community confidence in vaccination can be easily threatened, leading to surges in vaccine preventable disease.
Since they don't know – if children start dropping like the elderly; if they start getting sicker; if their immune systems are weakened, compromised, the health tyrants aren't going to be able to explain these occurrences away like they did with the elderly. They might not be able to do the damage control of the vaccines being related to the adverse reactions, which means they are scared of public reaction – maybe people coming after them with pitchforks.
And look at what they are really concerned with – Crucially, if reports of serious complications arise they could harm our wider immunisation programme. Community confidence in vaccination can be easily threatened – isn't that what it boils down to?
They had to pull out all stops to come up with a reason that 18-year-old Camilla Canepa, from San Martino, didn't die of the vaccine (although they halted the AZ jab for those under 60 afterwards); and that may be the official narrative, but one should know better by now. This healthy 18-year old experienced death by injection.
Then, they bring up vax-inequity. Blah-blah-blah.
Then main point is they've got to get the other groups done first, because they know recommending it for this this young age group could have disastrous effects on their worldwide jab programme which started taking out the weak, poor, vulnerable and elderly in true eugenic-fashion.
Governments follow their health advisors and their health advisors follow Big Pharma – so how long will it take for them to change their stance? Not long, especially when their goal is to jab school children this Autumn.
Parents might find this document useful –
especially because they are letting children make health decisions after they've been programmed to believe Big-Brother and the Nanny-State in school settings:
Gillick Competence in the Age of Covid19: Empowering Children To Make Informed Medical Decisions.
https://consent-charity.org.uk/empowering-children-to-make-informed-medical-decisions/
It was featured on the Vaccine Injury UK Facebook page.
Even with their well-intended advice, we must always truth The Lord. And what did He say?