We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

COVID-19 – Vaccinating Children and Young People

As the UK Government continues to goosestep it’s way through society injecting everyone it can with it’s experimental gene-therapy, starting with “the vulnerable” which was defined very early on and has since expanded to include literally everyone, we’re now seeing them turn their attention to children. This was always where this was headed, and the Government’s “first phase priority groups” list was updated in April 2021 to include everyone.

The table is as follows:

PriorityRisk Group
1Residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults
2All those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
3All those 75 years of age and over
4All those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 16 years of age)
5All those 65 years of age and over
6Adults aged 16 to 65 years in an at-risk group
7All those 60 years of age and over
8All those 55 years of age and over
9All those 50 years of age and over
10Rest of the population (to be determined)


Obviously it was going to start with the elderly, those members of society the State deems a burden. The sales pitch for this was “oh well we can all get our freedoms back when we’ve protected the vulnerable”, which was made to sound like just the very old people most at risk from a respiratory ailment. There were bonus payments for NHS surgeries that got their care-home residents injected as quickly as possible. This was back in December 2020 and January 2021 where it would be easy to justify any subsequent deaths from getting injected with experimental goop as “winter mortality”.

As you can see from the following screenshot from the GP Online website of an article published on 29th January 2021 titled “COVID-19 vaccination payments worth around £80m to come through in February” each Primary Care Network (PCN) will receive their normal…

£12.58 per dose administered – plus a supplement of between £10 and £30 per vaccination in a care home. Jabs in care homes delivered before Sunday 17 January attract a £30 additional fee, with this supplement dropping to £20 for doses between 18 and 24 January and £10 the following week.

And people wonder why doctors are going along with all this?

As the State has gone though it’s list of “vulnerable” people in their “priority” list, we’re now down at “rest of the population” and specifically children.

Something the mainstream media does is pick words that are emotive, something that will create a visceral reaction and get people feeling, rather than thinking. An accusation that has been directed at anyone raising concerns relating to injecting children specifically with this provably harmful to many, experimental non-treatment is that using the word “children” is somehow manipulative language and that these are “young people”, not children and go on to say that calling 17-18 year olds children is dishonest.

Obviously that’s just an attempt to sidestep the actual point being made and create an argument about something only tangentially connected. But in case you want some evidence that will silence that particular line of attack, the Government published a document on 13th August 2021, available on their website titled “COVID-19 vaccination programme – Vaccinating children and young people: frequently asked questions” (mirror).

The document begins with a table titled “Vaccinating children and young people: summary of current position” where one of the “cohorts” is “12 – 15 years at risk”. Another is “12 < 18 years household contacts of immunocompromised”.

It also helpfully informs us that:

Pfizer BioNTech mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine will be known as Comirnaty once licensed.

Page 2 – https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2021/08/C1384-Vaccinating-children-and-young-people-frequently-asked-questions.pdf

Cute name “Comirnaty®”, which one can only assume is supposed to sound a bit like the word “community” in an effort to make it seem like an altruistic community effort by the benevolent Pfizer, rather than the State sponsored experiment and blatant cash grab that it is. Also on the 13th August 2021 the UK Government published the “National protocol for Comirnaty® COVID-19 mRNA vaccine” which is for the “administration of Comirnaty® COVID-19 mRNA vaccine by appropriately trained persons”.

This protocol is, according to the document, valid from 12th August 2021, to be reviewed on 1st October 2021 and expires on 31st March 2022. According to the “COVID-19 weekly announced vaccinations” document last published on 26th August 2021 in the “Overall Vaccination Activity” section:

As of 22nd August, 39,227,657 individuals aged 18 and over have been vaccinated with at least one dose (88.6% of the population aged 18 and over) and over three quarters of individuals aged 18 and over have now been vaccinated with both doses (34,645,413, 78.3%).

More than 9 in 10 individuals aged 50 and over (19,892,388, 94.5%) and more than 9 in 10 individuals aged 40 and over (25,848,796, 91.7%) have been vaccinated with both doses.

Overall, almost 9 in 10 individuals aged 18 and over who have received at least one dose have also received a 2nd dose (88.3%). Second doses have been administered to more than 9 in 10 (96.5%) of individuals aged 40 and over who have received at least one dose, and more than 9 in 10 of individuals aged 50 and over who have received at least one dose (97.6%).

Page 4 – https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-26-August-2021.pdf

Looking at those figures if they are to be believed, along with this graph from their document…

…could make you wonder why there is a need for a “National protocol” for the “administration of Comirnaty® COVID-19 mRNA vaccine by appropriately trained persons” when it appears a vast proportion of the alleged vulnerable from the ages of 50 upwards are at 90% “double-jabbed”. Well the “Vaccinating children and young people: frequently asked questions” document is here to enlighten you.

One of the early general questions in this FAQ from the State is “Can eligible 12-15 year olds be vaccinated at roving/pop up sites?” The answer is:

The Green Book states that “in secondary school age children, information leaflets should be available for the young person’s own use and to share with their parents prior to the date that the immunisation is scheduled”. We are currently considering how this standard can be accommodated within a roving/pop-up model. Until a solution is identified it is not possible to vaccinate eligible 12-15 year olds in a pop up/roving site unless they have received an information leaflet prior to the date that the immunisation is booked.

They are looking to identify a “solution” to circumvent the standard procedure where children should be provided with information leaflets for them to use, and to be shared with their parents “prior to the date that the immunisation is scheduled”. This is obviously a problem for the State, as their roving injection administrators can’t just pop up and start jabbing children, at least not according to the Green Book standard.

Another question is “What are the consent requirements for vaccinating eligible 12-15 year olds?” which is a good question, as 12-15 year olds cannot consent to anything as they are minors. The answer is:

Prior to vaccination, appropriate consent must be obtained in all cases. For 12-15 year olds, this would be parental consent or the child’s own consent where they have been assessed as competent to consent to vaccination (this is known as Gillick competent).

It also states that “The consent briefing is currently being updated to reflect the new JCVI guidance” which sounds like more “solutions” to the pesky consent issues are pending.

Later on there is this question:

How will eligible 12–15 year olds at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease be identified and invited for an appointment?

Another excellent question as the Government’s own figures on risks for children show it is virtually nil. Here is a graph from the ONS website in the section titled “Deaths by age”:

Naturally an organisation intent on being completely transparent and honest with data decides to use differing age-brackets for the three sets of numbers. Because why not? Even so, looking at deaths for the week ending 20th August 2021 there are zero deaths for anyone aged 14 or under and a miniscule number of hospitalisations, those being children admitted to hospital who also happen to test “positive” with the test that isn’t a test.

If you think looking at a single week is too narrow a view and not representative of a broader picture, the ONS also has data about deaths for the whole of 2021 so far. In that spreadsheet for all weeks from week ending 8th January 2021 up to 20th August 2021 for all age groups that include 0-19 years of age, there are 26 deaths that are registered “involving coronavirus” in 8 months. Obviously those 26 deaths are tragic losses to their respective families but not only is it not certain that COVID played any part in their passing away, but 26 is such a miniscule number that to then claim that the State needs to go around jabbing all the children with an experimental non-vaccine is absurd. According to this FOI request response from the ONS in the whole of 2020 there were 20 deaths of those aged between 0-19 allegedly from COVID.

Ah but it’s not all children, just the “high risk ones”, right? And so the answer to the question above as to how they identify “eligible 12–15 year olds at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease” is answered…

PCN groupings are asked to identify eligible patients aged 12-15 at increased risk of serious COVID-19 disease as soon as possible and invite them to attend a clinic. This currently includes children with: severe neuro-disabilities, Down’s Syndrome, underlying conditions resulting in immunosuppression, profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD), severe learning disabilities or those on the learning disability register.

COVID-19 is allegedly a respiratory disease, albeit having had tagged on to it the symptoms of almost every other illness and most notably the primary side-effect of the so-called vaccines, that being blood-clots. However there is no medical or scientific reason why children with “neuro-disabilities, Down’s Syndrome” or “learning difficulties” would be any more susceptible to a respiratory illness or at any higher risk of it being worse due to those cognitive issues.

This is just more of the same, the Government knowingly injecting harmful substances into people that they deem a burden. Sure they ultimately want to get mRNA into everyone, but the targeting of the elderly and the disabled was clear before, but was under cover of “vaccinating the vulnerable”. This though is not even remotely justified by either their own statistics, or the notion that these children are somehow clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have a neurological problem or learning difficulties.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Adults get to choose. They can make terrible choices based on either ignorance, fear or wilful negligence and devotion to the State, and those choices are theirs to make. Children are not given a choice. Not even using Gillick competence are they really making a choice because they have been terrorised for over a year, blamed for the spread of a fake deadly disease, blamed for the deaths of their elderly relatives, blamed for supposed adults appalling choices to comply with the tyrannical State.

If as an adult you’ve gone along with the fake pandemic narrative and rules because you really believed the Government and the media when they told you there was a deadly virus, or you went along with it so you could get your “freedom back”, there is now a preponderance of evidence to prove to you none of those reasons were valid. If there is a line that you wouldn’t allow the Government to cross however, please let it be this one.