Why were German politicians so eager to vaccinate children, and why are they lying about it now?
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | November 18, 2023
Here is a riddle:
Why were German politicians so eager, in summer 2021, to vaccinate children? Why did they place public pressure on vaccine regulators to recommend child vaccination?
Even a few months ago, I would’ve said this was no great mystery. Before August 2021, everybody still operated on the insane assumption that the vaccines would eradicate Covid. They believed (or professed to believe) that a vaccination rate in excess of some magic number would end the pandemic, and that magic number was presumed to be unachievable if children were spared the jabs. I’d still say that was the case, but a recent news story has caused me to consider this question more deeply. Where did the specific pressure come from? What drove, for example, random regional ministers of education to mount their own appeals to vaccinate schoolchildren? What did these dumb people ever know about viruses or reproduction numbers or population immunity? What was going on?
There has been a lot of talk in the German press about the need for an appraisal of pandemic policies. This talk has flowed in directly inverse proportion to anybody’s willingness to actually appraise anything. Almost the only exception is the state parliament of Brandenburg, where Alternative für Deutschland are strong enough to have forced the convening of a Corona Investigatory Committee. The revelations so far have been extremely eye-opening, despite the limitation of the inquiry to Brandenburg and substantial obstruction from the political establishment.
The Committee publishes no protocols, many of their sessions are closed to the public, and with a few exceptions the media studiously avoids reporting on their work. Nevertheless, every time its members meet, something new and very bizarre comes to light. During their third session, in October, the Committee summoned Britta Ernst, Minister of Education in Brandenburg from 2017 to 2023, and also since 1998 the wife of Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At one point in the proceedings, Saskia Ludwig asked Ernst a very important question, namely the one that stands at the head of this post:
Why did Ernst advocate the vaccination of children in 2021?
The Nordkurier reports on the exchange that ensued:
Ernst had always campaigned in favour of vaccination and said in November 2021 that a “high vaccination rate” was “crucial for child welfare.” Ludwig asked … whether Ernst would repeat this statement given the current level of knowledge about the risk of side effects when vaccinating children against Covid.
Ernst … replied that the recommendation of STIKO [the Standing Committee on Vaccination] had been decisive for her.
STIKO “set the standard” and she had “no doubts about the work of STIKO,” which is why she had “naturally adopted their findings, which they make on a scientific basis.” Regarding her statement from November 2021, she said: “I suspect that this quote regarding the vaccination rate referred primarily to adults.” Ernst continued: “In addition, STIKO also recommended the vaccination of children and adolescents, and we followed this recommendation.”
In other words, Ernst was just Following the Science. She was just doing what the expert regulators of STIKO told her to do.
Except, that’s not true at all. Ernst was calling for the vaccination of teenagers as early as July 2021, well before that body had made any such recommendation. She was circulating flyers among Brandenburg schoolchildren that assured them they might even be able to get vaccinated without their parents’ permission. And what is more, she was even demanding that STIKO expand their recommendation to include everyone over 12 years of age.
From an rbb return-to-school article published on 29 July 2021:
The new school year begins in Brandenburg in just over a week. Primary school pupils will then be required to wear masks and there will continue to be plenty of ventilation. The Minister of Education believes that schools are in a good position – but there is still a need for action when it comes to vaccination.
Brandenburg’s Education Minister Britta Ernst (SPD) is calling for children and young people to be vaccinated from the age of 12 …
Until now, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) has advised that 12 to 16-year-olds should only be vaccinated if they have certain preexisting conditions. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has already approved the vaccines from Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer for this age group.
Ernst called on STIKO to issue a clear recommendation in favour of these vaccinations. The committee has already established that the incidence of infection among children is not dangerous and that illnesses among children are not severe. “This gives us further support in favour of opening schools,” Ernst said. A clear recommendation from STIKO, however, would be “helpful in any case, because many parents are naturally unsure how they should act.”
It wasn’t just Ernst. The day before, the Minister President of Brandenburg, Dietmar Woidke, had also renewed his demands that STIKO approve the vaccines for healthy adolescents:
On rbb television, Brandenburg’s Minister President Dietmar Woidke (SPD) once again called for the vaccination of children aged twelve and over to be considered. “STIKO already recommends vaccination for children with pre-existing conditions,” Woidke said. He would welcome it if … STIKO were to make a recommendation for the vaccination of adolescents in view of the spread of the Delta variant. According to Woidke, Delta has increased the risks for children and adolescents. STIKO must now weigh “the risk posed by Covid and the risk that vaccines may pose to younger age groups.”
Confronted with these contradictions at the Committee last month, Ernst became oddly evasive. She said vaguely that “many parents were waiting for a recommendation from STIKO” and that she “seem[ed] to remember that children in other countries were already vaccinated.” She did not refer to Woidke or describe any broader discussions within the Brandenburg government, although demands for child vaccination were clearly bigger than her. Nor did she refer to pressure from teachers’ organisations or any specific epidemiological goals.
The excuse about parental pressure is very strange and unsatisfying, when you think about it. First, the vaccines had already been approved by the EMA for the 12-and-up group. Parents who really wanted to jab their kids just had to find a willing doctor. Second, and more importantly, it is not the job of state education ministers to pass the concerns of local jab-crazed parents on to national medical regulatory bodies in the media. Why can’t Ernst clearly describe her motives? Where did the demand to vaccinate children come from?
At another revealing moment, Ludwig asked Ernst about a pro-vaccine flyer circulated among Brandenburg schoolchildren. This flyer assured kids that “There are hardly any long-term side effects; the vaccine is broken down quickly by the body.” It also enthused that “In some cases, you can even be vaccinated without your parents’ consent.” Here, too, Ernst had no good answers. She would say only that the flyer merely described “the legal situation” and “that underage girls are given contraceptives by doctors without parental consent.”
I looked into this flyer, which is a creepy exercise in marketing vaccines to children. The version that was circulated in Thüringen is still online:

Ernst couldn’t say much about its contents because it came from on high. The flyer was funded by the Thüringen Health and Education ministries, and masterminded by odious health communicator, Erfurt professor and villain-of-the-blog Cornelia Betsch. In later months, Betsch would go on to advise the government on how to nudge German vaccine uptake higher. We are dealing with the upper reaches of the German vaccinator-industrial complex here, in other words. The flyer was designed according to interviews its authors conducted with teenagers at the Henfling Gymnasium in Meiningen, for the purposes of figuring out out how best to manipulate kids into getting excited about vaccines.
There are two things about this document that make it extremely obnoxious. The first is that it is full of highly manipulative propaganda. It tells children that “The virus spreads primarily among the unvaccinated,” that “if you are not vaccinated, you have a greater risk of becoming infected,” that “the virus is becoming more contagious,” that “it is very rare to be infected despite vaccination and it is rare to infect others” and that “if you are vaccinated, you also protect others who can’t be vaccinated.” It contains a specific section explaining that the vaccines won’t impact fertility, and so I expect it was targeted specifically at girls, for whom the get-vaccinated-to-protect-your-family subtext would be especially effective.
The second obnoxious point is that this flyer, advising teenagers to seek the jabs even in the absence of parental permission and providing them with the contact information of local vaccination centres, was published on 14 July 2021. That is, it came out in advance of any official STIKO recommendation that this age group should be jabbed at all, and just two weeks before leading Brandenburg politicians like Ernst and Woidke began calling for STIKO to expand their recommendations to include teenagers.
There was, then, an unauthorised child vaccination campaign underway in summer 2021, which consisted of vaccine propaganda circulated to school children on the one hand, public pressure on vaccine regulators on the other hand, and who knows what else on however many other hands. It was timed around the summer holidays, for the clear purpose of scaring children into seeking the jabs before they returned to school. For some reason, Ernst will not tell the Brandenburg parliament why she participated in this campaign, and she will not say who its orchestrators were.
The scandal of excess death reporting (or lack thereof)
Imagine the noise if the unvaccinated were the ones dying…
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | November 16, 2023
In stark contrast to the 2020 relentless daily death counts, there has been a virtual media black-out on excess deaths since the vaccine rollout.
Waves of excess mortality were followed by a brand new medical product being rolled out to entire populations globally and then the excess deaths went up stepwise. Leaving aside for a moment that no proper follow-up was put in place, no pharmacovigilance, no monitoring of the group that chose not to have the injections, we are left with having to use our mathematical minds to prove that something very unsettling is happening which certainly won’t remain hidden forever. Death is not ambiguous.
If most of the excess deaths were in the unvaccinated group of the population, this would be a brilliant indicator of the amazing value of the ‘safe and effective’ injections. The media has had a clear editorial line for decades: “thou shalt not increase vaccine hesitancy.” The underlying quasi religious assumption is that any such hesitancy would be ‘catastrophic’ for society’s health. If, after the jab rollout, the unvaxxed were dropping like flies, you can bet your bottom dollar that the media jackals would be promoting this in lavish technicolour centrefolds. “As Jane drew her last breath, her final whispered words were, ‘I wish I’d just got the damned vaccine’”... and so on and so forth. The data would have been repeatedly promulgated ad nauseam, to prove what fools the unvaccinated were and how brilliant the vaccines are. But this is not what is happening, because it would be an outright lie. So instead, we have radio silence on the topic of excess deaths, to avoid uncomfortable questions being asked.
Key to understanding what is happening is in realising that the vast majority of those at most risk of dying have been vaccinated. Therefore, patterns in the overall population reflect what is happening among that majority. It is almost impossible for the minority unvaccinated group to be responsible for such an increase in mortality.
To use an analogy, imagine if 90% of cars were given a new device claimed not only to be effective at preventing extra accidents but also super safe. Afterwards, there’s a 10% overall rise in car accidents from 100 a month to 110. If all the extra accidents were happening in the 10% of unaltered vehicles that would mean that among this group were the 10 accidents that represent the background rate in 10% of the population plus the extra 10 accidents. That would imply the accident rate had doubled in the cars that had not been altered. If, however, the new innovation was responsible, then the 10 extra accidents would be added to the 90 background accidents in the altered group, which would make for an overall increased rate of 11%. The latter scenario is much more likely and is much easier to believe, mathematically speaking.
Thinking of that analogy, let’s look at what has happened to deaths after the vaccine rollout. Take the 50-64 year age cohort as an example. From July 2022-Sept 2023, there were 12.5% more deaths than expected in this group, some of which were attributed to covid. Even excluding excess deaths that were blamed on covid, there were still 8.8% more deaths than expected in this age group. If these deaths were happening to the unvaccinated (because they hadn’t received the miracle drug), the mortality rate would have had to have doubled in that group for eighteen months straight. To put that into context, the excess from March 2020 to December 2021 (during the height of BBC daily reporting on excess deaths) was 19% higher than baseline average.
This is a rather mathematically complicated way of saying that the deaths are clearly not happening predominantly in the unvaccinated cohort because mathematically speaking, it just doesn’t add up as a possible scenario.

Table 1: Percentage increase in deaths (July 2022-Sept 2023) by age group if all excess were in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. First two columns are for all cause deaths and the second two exclude deaths blamed on covid.
For the over 75 year olds the situation is the most ridiculous. Many old people have already died in excess in recent years, so now we ought to be seeing a deficit in deaths in this group. If there are extra deaths, they first have to make up for this deficit before they can count as “excess” deaths. If we assume the excess in among the vaccinated then the excess is indeed small at 5% for all cause deaths. However, if we attribute those excess deaths to the unvaccinated then that population is dying at three times the expected rate! Even if we exclude all deaths blamed on covid the unvaccinated would still have to be dying at double the expected rate. Why? What’s killing them?
Where’s the outcry?
Where are the weekly press conferences and the demand that we must make any sacrifice in order to save even one life?
Looked at in this way it is clear that the actual problem must lie in unexpected deaths among the vaccinated population.
Calls to ‘Stop the Shots’ Intensify
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 15, 2023
Activist groups, medical organizations and doctors around the globe are launching initiatives seeking to halt the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines or to have them pulled from the market altogether.
These efforts, including educational campaigns, legal challenges and petitions, cite the high number of adverse events and revelations regarding vaccine contamination as factors that may lead to the vaccines being recalled.
Several individuals involved with these initiatives told The Defender their efforts are beginning to make a noticeable difference — but that more work is needed.
“People are waking up to the fact that they were misled, and they are starting to demand answers from their elected officials and the safety and regulatory agencies that they trusted with the health of their children, but who lied to them,” said Janci Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services and co-founder of the We The People 50 — Recall The Shots campaign.
Bradford Geyer, an attorney with the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, which launched the We The People 50 initiative, told The Defender the response to the initiative has been supportive.
“Our movement is clearly growing, as Americans and citizens of other nations realize what governments and Big Pharma have done to them.”
COVID vaccines ‘must be stopped for the sake of humanity’
In the U.S., the We The People 50 initiative is calling for “the recall of the COVID-19 genetic ‘vaccines’ due to the large numbers of deaths, disabilities, and unreasonable harm they pose.”
The initiative is made up of doctors, scientists, attorneys, advocates, authors, researchers, victims and concerned citizens, according to Lindsay, who said the group’s mission is to save lives and protect the most vulnerable groups from these dangerous genetic vaccines.
“We are potentially contaminating the entire human gene pool with these reckless technologies, with almost zero oversight as to their consequences to humans, animals and the environment,” Lindsay said. “It must be stopped for the sake of humanity.”
The campaign was inspired by Dr. John Witcher, a Mississippi doctor who advocated for the recall of the COVID-19 vaccines in his state. Witcher, a former gubernatorial candidate in Mississippi, told The Defender his efforts began in September 2021, when he launched Mississippi Against Mandates.
Initially, the movement organized protests and rallies and a public awareness campaign, opposing vaccine mandates. “Our primary focus was to stop the mandates and be cautious of the shots,” Witcher said.
According to Witcher, a turning point came in late October 2021, when Dr. Peter McCullough spoke at a roundtable organized by the Mississippi group, during which he said the COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe for humans.
After that, Witcher said, the group “turned not just against the mandates but against the shots.”
In February, what was previously a statewide effort became a national initiative, following a meeting at the Mississippi Capitol where McCullough and other doctors, and several vaccine-injured individuals and their family members, spoke.
The We The People 50 campaign was spun off of the February event, Witcher said.
Lindsay said that based on Witcher’s efforts, she connected with Carolyn Blakeman, media director and task force coordinator of the FormerFedsGroup, to launch the campaign nationwide, seeking to “take this strategy of bringing a small group of testifying experts from all health disciplines, as well as vaccine-injured, to all 50 states.”
Recent research revealed that a significant percentage of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA and bacterial contaminants that can alter the human genome and trigger cancer and other serious conditions. Last month, Health Canada acknowledged the presence of such contamination in COVID-19 vaccines.
Genome integrity, informed consent, medical autonomy among key issues
“We have met with state legislators and with state attorneys and have spoken at multiple county commissioner meetings,” Lindsay said. “[We] helped draft laws around genetic vaccine safety, informed consent, medical autonomy, the right to maintain genome integrity, the right to be free from non-consensual transfection (shedding) and the right to deny coerced or forced medical treatments.”
According to Lindsay, the group “plans to leverage” consumer product protection statutes in several states “to get the shots pulled outright, or at the very least, to force the states to provide true informed consent.”
The initiative also calls into question the legal immunity of vaccine manufacturers under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, on the basis of state consumer protection laws and willful misconduct laws.
Geyer said, “The basis for such action is that these vaccines are contaminated and adulterated and proven to be dangerous and deadly.”
A class-action lawsuit filed in California in September on behalf of two remdesivir victims and supported by the FormerFedsGroup is based on similar arguments — namely that Gilead, remdesivir’s distributor, may have violated California laws against using deceptive practices, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
“The end goal is to get these shots pulled out of the consumer product stream and the genetic vaccine platform, banned in its entirety and those who developed, manufactured and administered these shots under false pretext, held accountable,” Lindsay said.
Geyer added, “The ultimate goal of the initiative would be to pressure local and state governments to take action by denying the access of citizens, particularly children, to these gene therapies.”
“We realize that a lot of it’s a political battle,” Witcher said. “We have to get our politicians involved and turn the tide, and certainly we need lawyers involved. So we’re just trying to educate people and to advocate for and protect people.”
AAPS calls for COVID vaccine moratorium: ‘Numerous safety signals’ ignored
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), “a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country,” has called for a moratorium on COVID-19 shot mandates and genetic injections.
A March 2023 AAPS statement says: “Informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical ethics, yet millions of people have taken COVID-19 injections under duress,” even though “The long-term effects of the novel mRNA or DNA technology and the lipid nanoparticles involved in their administration … cannot possibly be known.”
“Numerous safety signals, including excess sudden deaths, that would in the past have prompted immediate withdrawal of vaccines or drugs from the market,” have been observed, according to the AAPS.
As a result, the AAPS states that “COVID-19 genetic injections should be withdrawn from the market” and “All mandates, including requirements for school attendance or work, should immediately be withdrawn.”
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS, told The Defender that the organization’s call for a moratorium was prompted by the increase in vaccine mandates for uncommon, mild or treatable diseases. She said that “AAPS has always been against mass treatment that does not consider individual patients’ needs and [their] consent.”
Notably, in 2000, the AAPS issued a resolution opposing vaccine mandates, citing the importance of informed consent.
In November 2020, the AAPS said there were “many unknowns” related to the COVID-19 vaccines, including “long-term adverse effects,” adding that treatments like hydroxychloroquine have prevented COVID-19 deaths “without the adverse effects that could occur in vaccinating vast numbers of healthy people.”
When asked why other medical associations have not joined AAPS in calling for a moratorium on the COVID-19 vaccines, Orient cited conflicts of interest and fear of retaliation by government or private stakeholders.
World Council for Health: ‘Collateral damage’ of COVID vaccines unprecedented
Another organization calling for a moratorium on the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines is the World Council for Health (WCH), which last month convened an expert panel that discussed the presence of “cancer-promoting DNA contamination” in the vaccines.
According to the WCH, the panel concluded that “Covid vaccines are contaminated with foreign DNA and … SV40, a cancer-promoting genetic sequence,” and “qualify as GMO (genetically modified organism) products, which require approval in addition to that required for older, more traditional vaccines.”
“Informed consent for these products is impossible as the risks of the products have never been formally and transparently assessed by regulators and are not fully known,” the organization states.
As a result, the WCH called for “An immediate moratorium on these novel genetic ‘vaccines,’” in a statement which, according to Nic Robinson, the organization’s operations manager, was sent to U.K. members of Parliament.
Christof Plothe, D.O., a member of the WCH’s steering committee, told The Defender that “No medical intervention has ever created as much ‘collateral damage’ to the health of the people” as the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We now know that the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 and even dying of COVID-19 increases after each injection,” he said, adding, “In light of the unacceptable DNA plasmid contamination and the undeclared genetic sequences in the Pfizer vials, we have to fear integration of foreign genetic sequences, with unknown consequences.”
As a follow-up to last month’s panel of medical experts, the WCH will organize an expert international legal panel on Nov. 20, according to Robinson.
He added that the WCH has organized country councils, “a key strategic part of our plan to decentralize and inform individuals and communities and push back against centralized power and overreach, including COVID vaccine mandates and lockdowns.”
“The red line has been crossed, and every human being in charge of their distribution, whether in pharma, politics, medical regulatory bodies or the media, now has to say, stop the shots,” Plothe said.
The WCH has previously issued calls for the COVID-19 vaccines to be withdrawn, including in June 2022, based on the release of a WCH report on COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse reactions, and in September 2022, following the release of a peer-reviewed paper on such adverse events.
In June 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the WCH, called upon the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to immediately halt the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing a high number of deaths and injuries.
‘Few actions more necessary or noble’ than stopping mRNA COVID vaccines
A group of German doctors has also launched an initiative to end COVID-19 vaccinations — by reaching out to their colleagues in the medical profession.
An open letter authored by German doctors Uta Kristein Haberecht and Monika Grühn, and by Harald Walach, Ph.D., founder of the Change Health Science Institute in Germany and professional research fellow at Kazimieras Simonavicius University in Lithuania, is attempting to alert other doctors about the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The letter states:
“At the beginning of the pandemic, it was quite understandable that there were calls from various quarters to find a vaccine and distribute it quickly. It was assumed that the COVID-19 disease was dangerous to the general population, and that a vaccine could eliminate that danger. Therefore, regulatory hurdles for these substances were set low and potential danger signals were ignored.
“We have gained a great deal of new insights. … The vaccines offer much less protection than was originally anticipated … at the price of far more side effects than had been assumed and that one is willing to accept with other vaccines.”
The letter, which includes a scientific appendix with over 50 scholarly references, discusses concerns about the spike protein’s toxicity and its impact on fertility.
The letter calls for sharing differing scientific opinions and for public agencies and policymakers to conduct accurate surveys, investigations and audits through independent research.
“A dialogue at eye level is crucial for the preservation and maintenance of the medical ethos (Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Code),” the letter adds.
Grühn told The Defender :
“We critical thinkers often keep to ourselves, but many other doctors and healthcare professionals know very little about the dangers of the genetic vaccine platform, while being informed one-sidedly. Often, they do not have the time to do their own investigations.
“It therefore makes sense to approach them in a friendly and clear fashion and provide them with factual information so that they can form their own opinion.”
Walach told The Defender :
“There are now a lot of studies published that show the shots do not prevent infection. They do not prevent serious illness. They do not reduce mortality by any appreciable margin. But they produce many side effects.”
“Given that the benefits are very small to non-existent and the potential problems many, this must be stopped,” he said, adding “The mainstream press has not taken up any of these well-documented facts, and thus this is largely unknown to the public.”
In New Zealand, another doctor is also taking action. Dr. Emanuel Garcia, a psychiatrist who relocated from the U.S., has produced a petition calling upon the country’s government to ban all mRNA-based therapeutics.
According to the petition:
“mRNA therapeutics pose potentially catastrophic dangers; a recent study of the risks of mRNA vaccination shows that it can modify the human genome; many other aspects of mRNA-based therapies are unknown; the human genome is the very genetic blueprint of every individual, defines our health and well-being, and should be an inviolable entity.”
“In the past New Zealand has taken a pioneering position on the use of nuclear arms. We should do so now for mRNA-based interventions,” it states.
Writing on his Substack, Garcia said, “I can think of few actions more necessary or noble for a country to take at this time.”
The Malaysian Council for Health, the Malaysian Alliance for Effective Covid Control, and Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia issued a joint statement on Nov. 7 questioning the continued administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The statement references an increase in excess deaths in Malaysia and the contamination of the COVID-19 vaccines, stating that such contamination “has legal implications.” The statement suggests the legal immunity of vaccine manufacturers should “be nullified” on the basis that the contaminants are “undeclared ingredient[s].”
“Malaysian consumers would like to know if the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency … of our health ministry is aware of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contamination,” the statement says. “As this is both a very serious matter and alarming, the alleged malfeasance may also be a case of assisting and abetting.”
Legal cases worldwide target COVID vaccines
In Australia, attorney Katie Ashby-Koppens is seeking an injunction against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they are distributing products — their COVID-19 vaccines — containing GMOs, without a license to do so.
In a recent interview, Ashby-Koppens said, “The allegations are that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are genetically modified organisms by way of definition under the Gene Technology Act in Australia, as they are capable of transferring genetic material.”
“The fact that they are able to transfer genetic material means that those products should have been properly considered by the gene technology regulator in Australia. And they were not,” she added.
In Costa Rica, an ongoing court case will rule on a call to halt COVID-19 vaccines.
In a case filed by Interest of Justice (IOJ) against Costa Rica’s government, the country’s Administrative Contentious Court of Appeals, IOJ argues that authorities “lied” about COVID-19 vaccines being “safe and effective,” claiming they were aware the vaccines are “known to be harmful” and that “death is common.”
A hearing took place on Nov. 9 in which precautionary measures (akin to a temporary injunction) requested by IOJ were denied. However, according to IOJ, the judges appeared sympathetic and “extremely concerned” and granted IOJ the opportunity to submit a new filing, which will lead to a trial.
Experts including Dr. Mike Yeadon, former global head of respiratory diseases for Pfizer and current IOJ chief scientist, and internist Ana Mihalcea, M.D., Ph.D., testified remotely.
In South Africa, a lawsuit filed in January with the Pretoria High Court by three non-profit organizations seeks a moratorium on the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Shabnam Palesa Mohamed is the executive director of Children’s Health Defense Africa and founder of the health advocacy organization Transformative Health Justice, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. She told The Defender they’ve called for COVID-19 shots to be stopped until a full and independent investigation is conducted into their safety and efficacy.
The lawsuit includes a letter signed by over 100 South African healthcare workers attesting to adverse events they have observed in patients who received the COVID-19 vaccines and references the death of 14-year-old Yamkela Seplan, who developed a severe lump on her arm post-vaccination and subsequently died.
The first part of the case was heard in September and a ruling is pending.
‘We should not lose any time’
Several experts expressed a sense of urgency. Walach told The Defender, “It is feared that the mod-RNA platform will be surreptitiously used for standard vaccines as well.”
“We should not lose any time, as the health and lives of many of our fellow human beings are at stake,” Grühn said. “The aim is to extend this hazardous modRNA technology to many other vaccines.”
In a recent interview, German-Thai microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi told The Defender that the present moment represents the best chance we’ve ever had to oppose continued administration of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“We need to grasp this chance” because of “the knowledge that is now available that these vaccines are condemning humanity to oblivion,” he said, adding they “contain substances that will alter you genetically. You will not be the same human.”
“These are gene-therapeutic preventive medications, and they should be called by their real name and not ‘vaccinations,’” Walach said. “As soon as this becomes clear, people might think twice.”
“The end goal is, of course, total control over us, meaning not only over our finances, but also over our genes,” Bhakdi said.
Experts also called for legal consequences for the agencies and individuals who authorized the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines to the public.
“More is needed. [We] demand that safety signals be investigated promptly and thoroughly, as has been customary and is required by law,” Orient said.
“Politicians and regulators that are responsible for this, and media that created the fear atmosphere that allowed for this to go unnoticed, should answer for this,” Walach said.
“The COVID response violated constitutional rights and medical ethics,” Orient said. “Officials need to be held individually accountable. Emergency powers need to be constrained. We need institutions independent of the medical-industrial-regulatory-censorship complex.”
“Our members and loved ones were grievously mistreated and betrayed by the nation’s public health agencies and they seek accountability and justice,” Geyer said. “Our movement is growing, and U.S. politicians of all stripes will find it increasingly untenable to ignore us. We look forward to the day when the guilty parties are held accountable.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
What does the WHO say about its power to enforce the Pandemic Treaty (and International Health Regulations)?
By MERYL NASS | NOVEMBER 12, 2023
Many people have insisted that the WHO could not make the US do anything. Let me remind those people that the US government under Biden is instrumental in pushing forward the WHO proposals, and so it will comply. Here is what the WHO says:

What is meant by a ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?
Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding.
Why did WHO’s Member States decide to create an accord for pandemic preparedness and response?
In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO’s 194 Member States established a process to draft and negotiate a new convention, agreement, or other international instrument (referred to in the rest of this FAQ, generally, as an “accord”) on pandemic preparedness and response. This was driven by the need to ensure communities, governments, and all sectors of society – within countries and globally – are better prepared and protected, in order to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The great loss of human life, disruption to households and societies at large, and impact on development are among the factors cited by governments to support the need for lasting action to prevent a repeat of such crises.
[Ho ho ho—Nass]
At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics (including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information and expertise) and access to health care for all people.
[If this were true, why do the treaty and amendments only discuss health “coverage” which means health insurance, rather than health care? The WHO knows the difference, but only demands “coverage”—a sop to the insurance industry.
Furthermore, the WHO demands censorship of information not in agreement with the WHO’s narratives, not free sharing of information—so much for information equity—and its so-called expertise was used to overdose hospitalized patients with HCQ without informed consent, when these unfortunates were enrolled in the WHO’s “SOLIDARITY” trial. Its expertise led to demanding that nations stop the use of HCQ and ivermectin for COVID and administer more shots. Who needs this expertise? —Nass]
Who else is involved in the process for the accord?
Besides WHO Member States, the process for developing a possible new accord is providing extensive opportunities for engagement with relevant stakeholders, including other United Nations system bodies, and a wide range of other non-State actors in official relations with the WHO, to ensure robust and inclusive participation in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. Furthermore, WHO is seeking complementary inputs through public hearings with stakeholders including: international organizations; civil society; the private sector; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical, public policy and academic institutions and other entities with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise.
[In other words, Bill Gates, who was the largest funder of the WHO the year Trump defunded the organization, gets the lion’s share of input, while we peons get none. Trump then turned around and funded Gate’s’ charity GAVI with the money, and GAVI turned around and gave it back to the WHO. That was our money, by the way.—Nass]
—There is more of this nonsense on this webpage, but you can go look it up yourself if you have the stomach for it.—Meryl
Insurance Industry Execs ‘Alarmed’ by Surge in Deaths Among Young People — But Stop Short of Blaming COVID Shots
By Mike Capuzzo | The Defender | November 6, 2023
Executives at the largest insurance companies in the United States are alarmed that teenagers, young and white-collar Americans in the prime of life are inexplicably dying at a record pace, causing a “monumental outflow” of death claims and drag on profits that is shaking the industry and causing some to take a fresh look at the problem.
According to an Oct. 26 report in InsuranceNewsNet, U.S. insurance companies expected higher-than-normal payouts from excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Insurers saw death benefits rise 15.4% in 2020, the biggest one-year increase since the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, followed by a record $100.28 billion — nearly double the historic norm — in total death benefits paid out by the industry in 2021.
“The numbers were naturally forecasted to climb during the pandemic, but some industry and health authorities are concerned the rates haven’t greatly diminished as COVID infection rates have declined,” InsuranceNewsNet reported.
According to InsuranceNewsNet, insurers are especially concerned by data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that show “mortality rates alarmingly rising for different categories,” including younger adult mortality rates that are up more than 20% above historic norms in 2023.
The CDC numbers reported in August show the death rate for Americans ages 15-45 rose 20-24% above normal in 2020, and soared in 2021, to a nearly 30% death increase for 15-year-olds and a more than 45% increase for 45-year-olds.
Surge in excess deaths ‘caught carriers off guard’
Most troubling to insurers, CDC data reported in August showed that Americans in the period January-May 2023 were still dying at abnormally high rates with the pandemic long over. Mortality rates were 25% higher than normal among 15- to 19-year-olds and 20% higher among 45-year-olds considered in the prime of life.
Even twenty-somethings were dying at a rate nearly 15% above normal and thirty-somethings at a pace 20% higher than usual, the CDC data show.
Samantha Chow, global leader for Life, Annuity and Benefits Sector at Capgemini, a large, multinational Paris-based consulting company, told InsuranceNewsNet, “The surge in excess deaths caught carriers off guard” and the issue demands urgent attention by the industry.
The issue is, “Can the industry handle a sudden spike in claims?” She added, “The real concern for life insurers lies in preparing for an unexpected wave of death claims and the impact on their assets under management.”
“Do they have enough reserves to weather these outflows, given the excess deaths? It’s not just about death or health,” Chow said. “It is about the industry’s ability and readiness to manage this monumental outflow.”
The excess deaths and the record drag on insurance company revenue and the predictive chaos in actuarial tables they represent, alarmed the Society of Actuaries (SOA), the world’s largest professional actuarial organization.
Excess mortality is defined as excess deaths in a given population and time period above the expected number.
The SOA has conducted ongoing research since 2021 to gather “a high-level view of U.S. Group Term Life Insurance mortality results during the COVID-19 pandemic” compared to prior baseline results.
The SOA Research Institute studied more than 2.7 million claims and over $120 billion in earned premiums reported by “20 of the top 21 U.S. group term life insurers” in the U.S., representing approximately 90% of the employer-based group term life insurance industry.
In an August 2022 poll among its more than 30,000 members worldwide, the SOA found that 85% of members thought excess mortality rates would continue to 2025. In August this year, the same poll found 79% believed excess mortality rates will continue through 2026.
Life insurance executives and actuaries told InsuranceNewsNet, “The numbers are alarming and could continue to drag earnings and surge death claims for years to come.”
Society of Actuaries: no connection between historic death rates and COVID shots
Yet in its latest report issued in May, the SOA Research Institute found no connection between the historic U.S. death rates and insurance payouts starting in 2021 and COVID-19 vaccine mandates that rolled out the same year.
Chow blamed the excess deaths and claims on “the ripples of COVID-19 and its varying impacts, leading to higher rates of depression, suicide, and increased substance abuse.”
Other insurance executives told The Wall Street Journal they blamed “delays in medical care as a result of lockdowns in 2020, and then, later, people’s fears of seeking out treatment and trouble lining up appointments” for a surprising surge in non-COVID-19 death claims, especially heart and circulatory issues and neurological disorders.
But Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), who treats long COVID and vaccine-injured patients in his practice, called on insurance companies to work with media and governments and investigate the powerful evidence that countless deaths and disabilities are temporally linked to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and read the exploding science that pinpoints mRNA technology lethality.
In an interview with The Defender, Kory cited the more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine-linked injuries, disabilities and more than 30,000 deaths reported by doctors, nurses and others to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS, run by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is the government’s “early warning system” to detect vaccine harms.
Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most highly published cardiologists in the world, pointed to a study of deaths after vaccination with detailed autopsies in Heidelberg, Germany. “Of 35 fatalities within 20 days of injection, 10 were ruled out as clearly not due to the vaccine (eg drug overdose). The remaining 25 (71%) had final diagnoses consistent with a vaccine injury syndrome including myocardial infarction, worsening heart failure, vascular aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, fatal stroke, and vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” McCullough wrote.
He also cited his own systematic review of “all autopsy studies that include COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis as a possible cause of death” that found that “all 28 deaths were causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination by independent adjudication.”
Kory said a large and expanding volume of scientific literature has described the pathogenicity of the artificial spike protein, unleashed by the mRNA injection into the body.
“We know from research on autopsy series that among those who died from the vaccine, spike protein was disseminated to all organs and vessels of the body,” he told The Defender.
“Spike-induced damage occurs by numerous mechanisms, including necrosis of vessel walls leading to things like aortic dissection, inflammation of important organs, including the heart and brain causing myocarditis and cognitive deficits respectively,” Kory said.
He also also cited “fibrinoid aggregates circulating in the blood causing poor perfusion in the microcirculation as well as hypercoagulability in the blood causing strokes and heart attacks, immunosuppression causing increased risk of infectious illnesses, and/or reactivation of latent viruses.”
Edward Dowd, the former BlackRock fund manager who oversaw $14 billion in assets on Wall Street for the largest asset manager in the world, exposed the excess-death crisis in insurance-industry data in his December 2022 book, “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022.”
Dowd told The Defender that according to insiders at one of the biggest insurance companies in the U.S., “People in the industry know what’s going on but nobody at the top” is yet prepared to recognize it. “The CEOs and CFOs don’t believe it’s the vaccine. It’s not that these people are evil. They’re not separating facts from emotion.”
Dowd added:
“It’s not just that there’s a vast conspiracy. There was this fear that generated a destruction of critical thinking. My ethics professor at Indiana University said you can’t rationalize facts with someone whose position is based on emotion and ego.”
‘We don’t have proof’ yet — but data are ‘persuasive’
In his book, Dowd reported on insurance industry research in 2016, which found that group life policyholders, whose health insurance is covered by Fortune 500 companies and tend to be younger and well-educated, were the healthiest Americans, dying at one-third the rate of the general U.S. population. The trend of greater white-collar health continued through 2020.
But in 2021, after the COVID-19 jabs were mandated across the Fortune 500, the trend flipped. Ages 25-64 of the group life policyholders suddenly experienced 40% excess mortality, compared to 32% in the general population.
Disabilities also soared after the COVID-19 shots, from an annual U.S. baseline of 29-30 million disabled to 33.2 million.
Dowd, who continues to research excess deaths and disabilities for his Humanity Projects, told The Defender his new research, drawn from U.K. government statistics, shows deaths of schoolchildren went down in the U.K. in 2020 during the pandemic because the leading cause of death for children ages 1-14 is accidents.
With lockdowns and school closures, “Deaths went down. But then they started to go up again in 2021, and they’ve reached a new high in 2023 of 20%” above normal, he said.
Dowd told Russel Brand that such a huge jump in childhood deaths is “a six-standard deviation from the norm. A standard deviation is basically a probability from normal. It’s very unlikely.”
A five-standard statistical deviation is so remarkably far outside the norm it “would be the equivalent of a 7-foot giant being born, or many of them,” he said. “This is a six-standard deviation.”
Down said he believes the COVID-19 vaccines are causing widespread, otherwise inexplicable, excess deaths. “We don’t have proof. It’s our thesis,” he said. But “if you have a brain in your head,” the data are persuasive, he said. “Obviously I think it’s the vaccines.”
Mathew Crawford, a Texas-based statistician and finance specialist who spent years analyzing COVID-19 data for his Substack newsletter, told The Defender the insurance industry has been in denial over growing evidence for vaccine-induced excess deaths for more than a year.
In March 2022, he said, the CEO of German health insurance giant BKK ProVita presented evidence that the vaccines had already killed tens of thousands of Germans. He was fired the next day, as the story vanished from the news.
In June 2022, Lincoln National reported a 163% increase in death benefits paid out under its group life insurance policies in 2021.
In August 2022, Reinsurance Group of America’s (RGA’s) financial reports showed massive 2021 losses downplayed by the report authors, “plus plans for new accounting methods that we should all be worried are designed to sweep iatrogenocide under the rug,” Crawford said.
The SOA Research Institute report that claims to exonerate the COVID-19 vaccines in excess deaths actually does the opposite, Crawford said. Among other evidence, he said, it “shows group life insureds — particularly of working age — are seeing even more excess mortality than the larger U.S. population,” and “the sharp numbers during Q3 2021 coincide with vaccine mandates for working age individuals.”
The ‘worm is turning’
But Dowd said he believes “the worm is turning” on denial of vaccine harms.
He said he was optimistic that the work of Josh Stirling, founder of the Insurance Collaboration to Save Lives, a nonprofit that aims to reduce mortality by providing life insurers with tests to screen policyholders for health problems, shows a “big tent” is forming in the industry to tackle the problem.
“I think the truth is coming out,” Dowd said. “The stocks of Pfizer and Moderna continue to go lower. More and more people are getting disabled and injured over time.”
He cited the Rasmussen poll released Nov. 2 that found 24% of Americans “believe someone they know died from COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and even more say they might be willing to become plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against vaccine makers.”
The poll also found “There are almost no political differences on these questions,” said Dr. Robert Malone. “For example, 25% of Republicans say they know someone personally who died from side effects of COVID-19 vaccine, as do 24% of Democrats and those not affiliated with either major party. This is important – because this shows it is not a ‘tribal’ response. People from all walks of life are waking up.”
Kory said insurance executives need to ask themselves, What explains “the sudden, unprecedented rise in life insurance claims in the 3rd quarter of 2021 among the healthiest sector of society?”
Why were “working age, white collar Americans with group life insurance policies (i.e. largely Fortune 500 corporate employees)” suddenly dying at rates significantly higher than before?
“What happened in the white-collar workplace at that time?” he asked.
Kory said the answer is clear:
“I will give you the only possibilities that could explain such a sudden rise: a series of terrorist attacks, wartime mobilization, or the proliferation of corporate vaccine mandates. As far as I can remember, only one of those events actually took place.”
Kory and investigative reporter Mary Beth Pfeiffer in October published an op-ed in The Washington Examiner, “What’s behind the spike in deaths among younger, working people?” and another, in August, in USA Today titled, “More young Americans are dying — and it’s not COVID. Why aren’t we searching for answers?”
“Deaths among young Americans documented in employee life insurance claims should alone set off alarms,” they wrote in USA Today. “Week in, week out, this unnatural loss of life is on the scale of a war or terrorist event.”
“Life insurance data show a massive spike in excess deaths among younger, working-age people that began in 2021, even as COVID-19 deaths decreased, and continues today,” they wrote in The Examiner. “So far, good explanations are elusive. A concerted, bipartisan investigation should explore this threat to America’s economic future and recommend a course of action.
5 takeaways from mortality report
If the worm is turning, it’s not evident in major media or government policy.
Associated Press fact-checkers rated as “false” Kory’s claim that “an increase in death benefits paid out by life insurance providers in the third quarter of 2021 in the U.S. provides evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines, which became widely available in 2021, led to a spike in deaths.”
The AP said the vaccines are proven safe and effective and “insurance industry leaders say the delta variant of the coronavirus and deferred medical care during the pandemic likely contributed to the increase in deaths.”
The CDC says there is no evidence that excess deaths are linked to vaccines. “These vaccines are safe and effective and have undergone the most extensive safety monitoring in U.S. history,” a CDC public affairs specialist said.
The AP reported that death after vaccination remains extremely rare, dismissing as not causally linked to the vaccines the unprecedented toll of deaths and injuries reported to VAERS.
Kory cited five takeaways that challenge that assumption from the mortality report on excess U.S. deaths by the SOA Research Institute:
- Among working people 35-44 years old, “a stunning 34% more died than expected in the last quarter of 2022, with above-average rates in other working-age groups, too,” Kory said, quoting data from the SOA Research Institute report. “COVID-19 claims do not fully explain the increase,” the SOA report noted.
- From 2020 through 2022, there were more excess deaths proportionally among white-collar than blue-collar workers: 19% versus 14% above normal. The disparity nearly doubled in the fourth quarter of 2022, U.S. actuaries reported.
- The executive of a large Indiana life insurance company was clearly troubled by what he said was a 40% increase in the third quarter of 2021 in those ages 18-64. “We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business — not just at OneAmerica,” CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference in January 2022. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
- Excess deaths are a global phenomenon. The U.K. also saw “more excess deaths in the second half of 2022 than in the second half of any year since 2010,” according to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. In the first quarter of 2023, deaths among people 20-44 years old were akin to “the same period in 2021, the worst pandemic year for that age group, U.K. actuaries reported. In Australia, 12% more people died than expected in 2022, according to that nation’s Actuaries Institute. A third of the excess was non-COVID deaths, a figure the institute called “extraordinarily high.”
- Death rates are lower than in 2020 and 2021, but they are far from normal. In the year ending April 30, 2023 — 14 months after the last of several pandemic waves in the U.S. — at least 104,000 more Americans died than expected, according to Our World in Data. In that period, 52,427 excess deaths were reported in the U.K., 81,028 in Germany, 17,731 in France, 10,418 in the Netherlands, and 2,640 in Ireland.
Kory said the major media silence on the issue and the SOA’s “strong desire to not be drawn into any debates regarding” COVID vaccine lethality,” despite evidence unearthed by the society’s research, is why he and Pfeiffer wrote the USA Today op-ed in the first place.
“Unsurprisingly,” Kory said, “the SOA does not attempt to interpret or even specifically mention the timing, suddenness, and magnitude of the rises in death claims of young, white-collar workers.”
“I would agree that it is not their job to do this, so the rest of us will,” he said. The way forward is “simply to ask if there were any other events preceding and during those massive spikes that could explain the rises. I can find no other rational explanation than the roll-out of vaccine mandates as the cause.”
Mike Capuzzo is the managing editor of The Defender. He is a former prize-winning reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Miami Herald, a science writer, and a regional magazine founding editor and publisher who has won more than 200 journalism awards as a writer, editor and publisher.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
CHD Sues Philadelphia Over Law Allowing 11-Year-Olds to Consent to Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 1, 2023
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and several parents today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a Philadelphia law that allows minors to consent to vaccination without their parents’ knowledge, saying the legislation violates the constitutionally protected doctrine of informed consent and fundamental parental rights.
The lawsuit alleges the City of Philadelphia engaged in a “wink and a nod” practice of vaccinating children behind parents backs without informed consent for the past 15 years, under the cover of the 2007 General Minor Consent Regulation.
That rule allows children 11 and older to consent to vaccination without parental knowledge as long as they receive a “vaccine information statement” (VIS) for the administered shot.
It also absolves the vaccine administrator of liability if the minor gives consent.
On May 14, 2021, the city’s Department of Public Health also enacted an additional COVID-19 Minor Consent Regulation, allowing children ages 11 and up to consent to the COVID-19 vaccine available under Emergency Use Authorization.
Under that regulation, children could give consent if they received the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fact sheet because a COVID-19 VIS did not exist at the time.
Tricia Lindsay, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children are at stake in the case:
“The only time that a parent loses rights to their children is by a strict showing that they are not capable of taking care of their child.
“But here the government of Philadelphia is issuing a blanket statement and taking away parental rights without due process, and that is one of the greatest violations ever.
“They are using emergency powers and the excuse of concerns over ‘health and safety’ to justify it. But it’s camouflage. It’s a Trojan horse. They are using these buzzwords to justify their tyranny … which is what you call it when you remove a person’s fundamental rights without due process.”
Seven Pennsylvania parents joined CHD in suing the City of Philadelphia, its Department of Public Health and City Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole, M.D., MPH, alleging the regulations violate their rights.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said those regulations also “raise troubling issues of informed consent, freedom of religion, parental rights, and due process, implicating both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other federal and Commonwealth laws.”
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare Philadelphia’s 2007 and 2021 Minor Consent Regulations illegal and to stop them from being enforced.
CHD President Mary Holland told The Defender :
“It’s absurd to imagine that it is safe or desirable for 11-year-olds to make potentially life-altering medical decisions on their own without parental guidance, knowledge or consent. Philadelphia’s so-called consent policies violate state, federal and constitutional laws. I am happy that CHD is able to help put an end to these policies that actually endanger children’s health.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and VISs
Plaintiffs allege that Philadelphia’s regulations conflict with the consent requirements of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), the federal law that has primacy over conflicting local laws on such matters, according to the U.S. Constitution.
They also argue that the complicated requirements for seeking compensation — if someone is injured by a vaccine protected by the NCVIA — would be incomprehensible to most, if not all, children.
Under the NCVIA, vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability for a vaccine’s adverse effects if the vaccines are listed on its “Vaccine Injury Table.” The table lists covered vaccines, their recognized injuries and the timeframes within which those injuries must occur to be considered compensable.
Liability for injuries caused by vaccines listed on the table cannot be pursued in a regular court of law, but are instead compensated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The VICP also can provide compensation for an injury by a covered vaccine, even if the injury isn’t listed as compensable on the Vaccine Injury Table. However, the legal and administrative process is more complicated.
Even for listed injuries, it can be difficult to obtain compensation from the VICP. The backlog of cases is substantial and the proceedings are often drawn out by contentious expert battles.
The NCVIA mandates that the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services create and publish VISs that detail the risks and potential adverse events associated with covered vaccines. Those sheets must be presented to children’s parents or legal guardians prior to vaccine administration.
The VIS is important, the complaint says, so that parents can recognize adverse events if and when they happen, and seek necessary medical treatment and also document such events in a timely manner, which is essential for seeking compensation through the VICP.
“If a parent is not aware of what their child has done,” Lindsay said, “then they don’t know what to look out for and they don’t know if the problem they are seeing is related to a vaccine.”
The NCVIA specifically mandated that VISs must be presented in a jargon-free and straightforward way that parents can understand.
The NCVIA doesn’t mention making them comprehensible to children, because the drafters of the NCVIA never imagined children would have to understand them on their own, the complaint alleges.
“The NCVIA simply does not contemplate that a child may be vaccinated without parental consent,” the complaint states. “Quite the opposite — the language of the NCVIA is clear that the VIS is provided to the parent who is able to offer informed consent on behalf of his or her child.”
But this law, the lawsuit alleges, removes parents from the equation altogether.
What about COVID vaccine injuries?
The COVID-19 vaccines are not covered by the NCVIA or the VICP.
Instead, under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, people injured by a COVID-19 vaccine or “countermeasure” can seek compensation only under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
Since 2010, when the CICP approved its first claim, the program has compensated a total of 36 claims for vaccine injuries — six of those awards were for COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries.
The complaint also noted that COVID-19 vaccines available for 11-year-olds are still investigational. “Children are not capable of understanding the risks associated with a novel vaccine and cannot appreciate that there are no long-term studies of the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines,” the complaint states.
Lindsay said it was particularly concerning that Philadelphia specifically included the COVID-19 vaccines in the regulations and that the regulations continue to stand even though the Biden administration ended the COVID-19 public health emergency in May.
She said:
“Why would we extend this risk further to a novel vaccine, which we now know has many more problems? Why would we be signing up children to a mass experiment and taking away their guardian, the person that stands on the frontline, that’s there to protect them, to cover them, to guide them?
“It has nothing to do with the benefits of children because if it did, you would approach the guardian of that child, the person that is given the authority and has the responsibility of that child to see that that child is safe and allow them to make an informed decision as to what they deem best for their child.”
Can 11-year-old children give informed consent for medical interventions?
The complaint cites a long list of activities that are typically restricted for minors or restricted without parental consent in Pennsylvania.
For example, minors under the age of 21 cannot purchase alcohol or tobacco or enter a casino. A person must be 18 to enter into a contract or to register for the selective services without parental consent. One must be 16 to donate blood and 14 to consent to mental health treatment.
It is also illegal, the complaint notes, for pharmacists to administer vaccines to children 5 and older without parental consent.
According to the complaint:
“Philadelphia’s Minor Consent Regulations turn these requirements on their head. Rather than protecting children, Philadelphia’s Minor Consent Regulations let any child walk into a temporary vaccine ‘pop-up clinic’ or elsewhere on a whim, roll up her sleeve and receive a vaccine without her parents’ knowledge and even more importantly, her parents’ protective veil of consent. …
“The Minor Consent Regulations are a house of cards built on the unsupported, unsupportable and preposterous presumption that every Philadelphia child aged eleven and up is capable of true informed consent, that every child knows her own medical history, her family’s medical history, and can truly ascertain the potential serious risks and alleged benefits of a treatment, and can read and understand any written information — written for adults — presented to her without further explanation.”
The lawsuit alleges children likely cannot fully comprehend the VISs, let alone consent to the vaccines. Philadelphia children, it notes, have very low reading proficiency scores — only 34% of elementary students and 43% of high school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading.
It also raises concerns that no concrete proof a child-provided consent is even required.
This, the plaintiffs say, is in conflict with both the federal NCVIA and Pennsylvania law. The latter requires the written informed consent of a parent before a physician is allowed to perform medical or surgical procedures on a child.
The complaint cited the Troxel v. Granville Supreme Court case and a series of other cases that found “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children” is a constitutionally protected right.
Other minor consent lawsuits and struggles
When the pandemic began, most states had existing laws mandating parental consent for vaccination, with a few limited exceptions. But once the vaccines became available, some states and localities attempted to lower the age at which children could consent to vaccination on their own.
During Tennessee’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the state’s Department of Health invoked the “mature minor’ doctrine” to allow minors 14 and older to be vaccinated without a parent’s consent.
But in response to grassroots mobilization and testimony by CHD, Tennessee lawmakers in April passed a law requiring healthcare providers to obtain consent from a parent or legal guardian before vaccinating a minor.
In March 2022, CHD prevailed in a lawsuit against Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, the D.C. Department of Health (D.C. Health) and D.C. public schools after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the schools from enforcing the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 — a law that would have allowed children as young as 11 to be vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
In that lawsuit, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of CHD’s argument that the NCVIA pre-empted D.C.’s law that attempted to lower the age of consent for vaccinations to 11, and prevented the mayor of the District of Columbia, the D.C. Department of Health and D.C. public schools from enforcing the law.
The court, in that case, commented specifically on the intended function of the VIS:
“If Congress did not mean for the legal representative of a child to receive a VIS when his child receives a vaccine, then the phrase ‘the legal representatives of any child’ would be superfluous. All Congress would have needed to say is that a healthcare provider should give a VIS ‘to any individual to whom such provider intends to administer such vaccine.’ But it did not do that.”
In June, New York legislators also attempted to pass Senate Bill S762A, which would have allowed minors to be vaccinated without parental knowledge or consent. But grassroots efforts, including those undertaken by CHD, prevented that from becoming codified into New York state law.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.





The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.