A Judge has ordered the UK Goverment to submit evidence that justifies Covid-19 vaccination of children, giving them a deadline of Monday 11th October.
The order from The Hon. Mr Justice Jay is most welcome after we exclusively revealed Thursday 30th September that since teens over the age of 15 had been given the Covid-19 vaccine deaths among the age group had increased by 47% compared to the same period in 2020. (See here)
We also then delved back into the Office for National Statistics data due to a suspicion we would find the majority of those deaths had been among teenage boys due to the risk of myocardtis, inflammation of the heart muscle, associated with the Pfizer vaccine and mainly occurring in younger males, as well as a correlation with a rise in emergency calls requesting an ambulance due to cardiac arrest, found in Public Health England data.
Unfortunately our fears were confirmed, as we exclusively revealed on Monday 4th October that deaths among teenage boys have increased by 63% in the UK since they started getting the Covid-19 vaccine. (See here)
To add to that we then exclusively revealed on Tuesday 5th October that Chris Whitty’s decision to overrule the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and advise the Government to offer the Covid-19 vaccine to all healthy secondary school children, has so far led to a 400% increase in deaths among male children compared to the same period in 2020. (See here)
However, people have been fighting in court to overturn the decision of the Chief Medical Officer for England that children should be given an experimental Covid-19 injection, but unfortunately to no avail so far.
The ‘Covid-19 Assembly’ and lawyer Francis Hoar had an application for an urgent hearing to pause the Covid-19 roll-out to under 18’s denied for a second time on September 2nd.
The Claimants had asked for just half a day for the Court to listen to oral argument to consider whether to pause the roll out of injections of experimental mRNA vaccine technology, producing increasing reports of clotting and other adverse effects including death, still under emergency authorisation and never before given to humans, to the whole of the healthy population of children aged 12-17.
The Court’s view was that to delay consideration of the Claimants’ application for 14 days to allow the government to prepare its response was not in fact a refusal. However, that delay had the practical effect of denying the urgent relief sought and left the full resources and machinery of the state to be put into gear.
Then on September 1th Covid-19 Assembly applied for a third time for the Court to listen to their argument, for just half a day, before the programme of mass injection of healthy children got underway.
However on the 17th September, the Court refused to allow the Claimants into Court before 28th September.
The Covid-19 Assembly then filed a claim to the Court of Appeal to overturn the Courts refusal to not allow an urgent hearing on the unnecessary vaccination of children, which can be read here.
Despite a last ditch attempt by the Government to persuade the Court of Appeal against it, the Court listed the case for an interim hearing on Wednesday 22nd September, unfortunately the appeal was refused and the case was still to be held on September 28th.
The outcome of the hearing on September 28th was as follows according to Covid-19
The Court has adjourned the matter to a further hearing to allow the government further time to respond to the case as set out most recently by the Claimants. This is because the JCVI and CMOs issued statements, and the Secretary of State made his decision to administer the mass vaccination, only after this claim had been issued. In response to those statements and that decision, the Claimants have necessarily had to amend the claims.
The government had asked for the case to be struck out but it remains before the Court. The Hon. Mr Justice Jay accepted that the Claimants’ barrister, Mr Francis Hoar, had done enough to persuade him there was an arguable case. The Judge also rejected the government’s argument that consideration of the case should be limited to how it affects the two claimants. In terms he accepted they were representative and were entitled to raise the issues for consideration with reference to the effect on the wider population.
However, the Court refused to order any immediate pause of the mass vaccination programme. Having heard submissions for the parties on how the case should proceed, the government seeking a long timetable and delay, the Claimants seeking a speedy hearing, the Court has given directions that the government submits further response and evidence by 11 October with the Claimants having to 15 October to reply. The Court will then reconsider the matter promptly.