mRNA injections and mask mandates are a predatory attack on our children’s bodies and minds.
Today is my child’s first day of school, and it’s been bittersweet.
I can keep my child from being injected with the Pfizer product (in principle, anyway) but short of removing him from school there is little I can do about his first year being marred by the blight of face masks.
He will be young enough not to have to wear one, but will be surrounded by older children who will. The joy of interacting with other kids and teachers, seeing their facial expressions and other important facial cues, will be violated by a useless, unhygienic, dehumanising muzzle.
Children need to breath
A 9-year old girl from my neighbourhood just told me, with eyes popping out of head, that she had to wear a mask at school today. She said it made her head hurt, and feel “kind of dizzy”. But they were allowed out of the classroom for up to a minute to take some deep breaths before putting it back on and resuming class.
If children need to leave the classroom to get sufficient fresh air, then they clearly shouldn’t be wearing a mask in the first place. I find it incredulous that our public health officials have decided this is a price worth paying for a virus with such a low mortality rate.
The damage being done to unvaccinated kids through the social alienation of being barred from school camps and sports activities and the inevitable bullying and stigmatisation that has occurred, is already unconscionable.
But injecting young children with this crap, masking them. It’s unspeakable what is taking place.
In a recent conversation with Guy Hatchard who writes the fierce Hatchard Report, he commented, “do these people even understand prana?”. Clearly not.
In Indian philosophy, ‘prana’ is the body’s vital energies. It is the “wind-like vital forces that assist breathing, distribution of food in the body, and digestion,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Note the word ‘vital’.
I’ve done enough yoga in my time to appreciate this wisdom, but if you prefer to look at it from the point of view of scientific materialism, then we can probably just leave it at the obvious – that our children require plenty of fresh air to function properly, on every level.
As well, humans were not designed to inhale their own carbon dioxide waste, or foster a warm moist environment for the growth of bacteria over an important orifice. Surely this is just common sense?
Visiting my child’s classroom today, I’m told they will have all the windows open at all times for good ventilation – great when it’s warm, but what if it’s cold and draughty? They will also eat outside. Ok, that’s cool, but what happens when it rains or it’s cold?
The idea that the teachers can’t make these basic, practical decisions based on real-time considerations, and instead must defer to arbitrary rules seems beyond ridiculous.
I must trust that the teacher’s sense of practicality and instinct for what serves the children best will prevail, but I’m already hearing anecdotes about children at other schools being forced to wear masks despite having exemptions. One girl became short of breath and fainted as a result.
My own child’s teacher wisely pointed out the importance of facial cues for children’s learning and said he will not be wearing a mask. But other kids in masks and teachers will still be a visual signal everywhere else in the school for my child to absorb. What message does it send, what will it do to his sense of the world?
Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield is on the record for saying that one reason to use masks is that they are “a constant reminder to people of the ongoing threat”.
But I have no desire for my child to be concerned about any such threat. I just want them to be left alone to be a child and do the busy work of self-development, unburdened by the world’s problems. That’s our job as adults, to let them just be, unencumbered by our fears.
Before the insanity of 2020, there was a significant consensus among medical professionals that masks did nothing to stop respiratory viruses from spreading.
Epidemiologist Michael Baker even said so back in February 2020.
“The virus can also infect you via your eyes. It basically likes to land on mucus membranes, and then, from your eyes, go down to your nose anyway. So I think people should not bother with the face masks.”
And studies done in the last two years have found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control, according to Swiss Policy Research, an organisation that has impeccably recorded data from all over the world during the covid situation.
The largest of these studied 6000 subjects. The Danish study found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.
Now, Baker is suggesting children as young as two should wear masks. I felt a rising anger in my gut at how thoughtlessly, recklessly, those words left his mouth.
And this is many months after a US study found that kids born after the pandemic began showed a drop of 22 points on the Mullen scales of early learning from the average of previous cohorts, corresponding to an average IQ score of 78.
“We find that children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic. Moreover, we find that males and children in lower socioeconomic families have been most affected.
“Results highlight that even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19 illness, the environmental changes associated Covid-19 pandemic is significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”
The report authors go on to say:
“Masks worn in public settings and in school or day care settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socioemotional processing.”
So it was painful to hear Baker glibly call for two-year-olds to be masked.
“Our biggest gap in immunity, in many ways, is younger children. It’s been partially filled by lowering the vaccine age to five. But, we’ve still got the younger age groups, many of whom are going to early childhood centres, and they won’t be protected by the vaccine. So, we need another barrier in the way of them getting infected.”
Hatchard calls this the “shield mentality”. We must use our children as a protective fence for our elders, by masking and jabbing them. When did our ethics get so topsy-turvey?
A recent freedom of information request in the UK shows that in the last two years, there were no deaths in children between the age of 1 and 9, where covid-19 was the only cause listed on the death certificate. There was one death under 1 year, one in the 10-to-14 age group, and one in the 15-to-19 age group, and 5 in the 20-to-24 age group.
So why are we rolling out these experimental jabs to our kids?
Risk of covid versus risk from the injection in children
Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility spokeswoman Jodie Bruning said after two years, the truth concerning the lack of risk to children and the ethical considerations of injecting children with the gene therapy technology remains obfuscated by the Government.
“The Government makes no claims other than that the vaccinations will protect tamariki and continues to urge medical treatment of 5-to-11-year-olds to protect vulnerable family members.
“There has been no public discussion of how children may be at risk, and the implications of this risk. No discussion on the necessity of taking a new drug that has not stood the test of time. No analytics have been provided of the infection fatality rate of 5-to-11-year-olds throughout the pandemic.”
Bruning said the efficacy of the jab against the omicron variant now circulating was dubious (see here and here) and may even have negative efficacy, meaning that if someone is exposed to the infection after vaccination, the outcome is more likely to be worse.
She points out the Government’s Unite Against Covid-19 website categories groups at severe risk from covid, and children are not listed.
“It has been clear from very early on, that healthy children and young people, including those with a single health condition are not at risk. In the UK, with a similar obesity rate as New Zealand, 99.995 per cent of children and young people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test survived. This equates to an infection fatality rate in the UK of 0.0005 per cent (from a study of over 12 million).”
And yet the risk from vaccine injury in children and young people, is heightened and throws a spanner in the works of the presumed safety of the roll-outs, Bruning said.
“Studies from the USA, Hong Kong, Denmark show high levels of myocarditis in young people, particularly males. Scientists have drawn attention to the fact that these rates are above background rates.”
One study that found there were major risks for children, was pulled by the publisher Elsevier without explanation, after passing peer review. Elsevier is now facing legal action from the authors because of the unusual circumstances.
The British HART group (a group of doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other experts concerned about policy and guidance relating to the covid-19 pandemic), sent an urgent letter to UK drugs regulator the MHRA on 20 January, urging an investigation to find out if the covid jabs are causing a “significant numbers of deaths seen recently in male children and young adults.”
The groups is also asking that anonymised data showing how many kids have died following the jab, and within how many days, be published for the sake of transparency and the public interest. And here is what HART has to say about masks.
The letter to MHRA came on the heels of evidence presented to the High Court in London on 13 January showing a significant increase in the number of young male deaths following the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccinations compared with the prior five-year average between 2015 and 2019.
On 19 November, under court order in the US, Pfizer released a document titled Cumulative Analysis Of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports Of Pf-07302048 (Bnt162b2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021.
Pfizer’s own safety monitoring recorded more than 150,000 adverse reactions, within three months of the global roll out.
In its appendix list of adverse reactions, Pfizer lists nine pages of ‘adverse events of special interest’, with barely a space between each one named. Many of these are very serious and include cardiac events, kidney problems, blood clots and Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.
The US vaccine pharmacovigilance system VAERS now records just shy of 2 million adverse reactions from the covid jab and nearly 35,000 adverse reactions in children between the ages of 5 and 17. This is the US Centre for Disease Control’s own data, with a calculated under-reporting factor of over 40 (Steve Kirsch and Jessica Rose have both run the numbers).
In the report covering 14 December to 21 January for 5-to-11 year-olds, there were 7052 adverse events. This included three reported deaths, including a 7-year-old girl from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer product. There were 14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, and 24 reports of blood clotting disorders.
New Zealand’s adverse event reporting system, CARM, managed by drugs regulator Medsafe shows there are now 45,984 events recorded and a total of 133 deaths, of which it only recognises two as resulting from the injection. There are citizens databases with many more injuries and deaths recorded, however.
Medsafe says an independent safety monitoring board has reviewed adverse reactions in children and found children are not disproportionately affected by the vaccine.
There just doesn’t seem to be a point at which they would ever pull the plug. It feels like deaths and injuries will go on unabated by regulators and ethicists and medical publishers.
A court case bought by parents against the Government to halt the vaccine roll-out to 5-to-11 year-olds did not succeed on 1 February, when High Court Justice Rebecca Ellis declined to halt the roll-out until a full hearing had taken place.
A spokesperson for the group, working together collectively as The Hood, said they were disappointed but not surprised by the decision.
“While we are concerned the Judge did not act in a precautionary way, by temporarily halting this roll out until the matter could be heard in full, our case remains compelling.”
The group was committed to continuing the fight, they said.
In other news, Pfizer is now asking for permission to jab babies as young as six months old. The insanity never ends.