The Legality of Compulsory Vaccinations By Richard Miller (London)
The European Court may well be setting a precedent with its judgment that governments can make vaccinations compulsory, since they are “necessary.” If this line is pursued then there will need to be by anti-vaxers a direct challenge to vaccinations per se. That would be interesting, since it is not well known that various techniques like finger prints have epistemological/methodological problems and have not been proven in courts, and have been questioned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examination
“On Thursday, April 8, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that governments can make vaccinations obligatory because they are “necessary” in a democracy. Experts stated that this ruling could have massive implications for Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination policies throughout Europe.
The ECHR made this ruling as a result of a case brought before the court involving several families from the Czech Republic whose children were barred from school because they elected not to give their kids vaccinations against nine different diseases: poliomyelitis, hepatitis B, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, whooping cough and pneumococcal infections.
Under Czech law, it is illegal to not be vaccinated against these diseases. They were either fined for failing to comply, or their children were denied admission to the school. The petitioners believed the consequences for not complying with Czech mandatory vaccination rules were a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which lays out how it is essential for the right to private life must be respected.
Sixteen of the 17 judges on the ECHR’s court of last resort, the Grand Chamber, rejected the appeal of the Czech families. The Chamber found that Czech authorities were well within their rights to punish the families of the unvaccinated children because they were supposedly doing it to protect the health and rights of others.
“The … measures could be regarded as being ‘necessary in a democratic society,'” ruled the court. It said that the Czech health policy mandating vaccinations for children was consistent with their “best interests” and that it had not “exceeded their wide margin of appreciation in this area.” The ruling added:
“The objective has to be to protect every child against serious diseases. In the great majority of cases, this was achieved by children receiving the full schedule of vaccinations during their early years. Those to whom such treatment could not be administered were indirectly protected against contagious diseases as long as the requisite level of vaccination coverage was maintained in their community; in other words, their protection came from herd immunity.”
Because of this, the court said that laws making vaccinations compulsory do not violate European law. As such, the decision of Czech authorities to bar children from school if they do not get vaccinated was “fully consistent with the rationale of protecting the health of the population.”
In addition to rejecting the argument on privacy, the ECHR also rejected an argument from several of the Czech parents that the Convention on Human Rights’ guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 protected them from mandatory vaccinations.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their stance on vaccines “was of sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance so as to constitute a conviction or belief.”
ECHR ruling could pave the way for mandatory vaccination legislation throughout Europe
These cases were lodged between 2013 and 2015, well before the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and it was primarily concerned with the vaccination of young children.
But Nicolas Hervieu, a legal expert specializing in European human rights concerns, still believes that the ruling has implications for the coronavirus. He said it “reinforces the possibility of compulsory vaccination” for COVID-19. Hervieu teaches at the Sciences Po, an educational institution in Paris that specializes in teaching political sciences.
Hervieu added that the ECHR’s ruling endorses “the principle of social solidarity which can justify imposing vaccinations on everyone, even those who feel less threatened by the disease, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable people.
Other legal experts like Hervieu have called the ECHR’s decision a death blow to the vaccine skeptic movements in Europe who opposed mandatory vaccinations.
Governments all over the EU have now been provided a legal precedent to make vaccinations against COVID-19 compulsory. But this does not mean every single nation in the bloc will make vaccinations mandatory.
French President Emmanuel Macron previously stated that he is against mandatory vaccinations.
“I do not believe in compulsory vaccination for this [COVID-19] vaccine because above all we have to be very honest and very transparent,” he said in Dec. 2020. “We do not know everything about this vaccine as we do not know everything about the virus.”
That view of compulsory vaccination can be argued, in the case of child vaccination to be “child abuse,” according to Candace Owens.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-04-09-candace-owens-calls-children-vaccination-child-abuse.html
“Conservative commentator and Blexit leader Candace Owens called the experimental coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination for children “a type of child abuse.”
On March 31, Owens tweeted: “Experimental vaccines on children who have an approximate 0% chance of dying from the virus for which they are being vaccinated against is a type of child abuse. Zero long term trials conducted. I just cannot understand parents that would allow their kids to be guinea pigs.”
Big Tech doing the bidding of Big Pharma
Her tweet caught the attention of Twitter and promptly labeled it as “misleading.”
However, state-level data report about COVID-19 on children shows that the information in Owens’s tweet is accurate. As of April 1, 0.00 to 0.003 percent of all COVID-19 cases involving children in the U.S. resulted in death, with 10 states reporting zero child deaths.
According to the data published in the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics, there are 3,469,500 total child COVID-19 cases reported in the country. Of those cases, only 0.1 to 2.0 percent resulted in hospitalization.
Owens posted two more tweets shortly after Twitter flagged her initial tweet.
She reiterated her stance in the first tweet: “Twitter has unnecessarily slapped a label on my entirely truthful tweet. 1) There are no long-term studies on the COVID-19 vaccines; 2) Children have an approximate 0% chance of dying from the virus; 3) I stand by my assessment that using children as lab rats is child abuse.”
In her next tweet, Owens said Twitter is doing the bidding of large pharmaceutical companies. She wrote: “Sticking bulls**t labels on tweets because Big Pharma tells you to is not going to make me get the vaccine. And it’s sure as hell not going to transform my personal decision not to vaccinate my child. I’m not a sheep.”
COVID-19 vaccine for children is not a one-size-fits-all solution
The scientific community is facing a unique set of challenges in a bid to ensure that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe for children.
Children are not involved in the original clinical trials because severe illness from COVID-19 is more common with adults, specifically older adults. Because a child’s immune system is much different from an adult’s, vaccines tend to require different dosage levels or formulations.
Another thing to consider is that children’s immune systems can vastly differ depending on how old they are. Thus, the COVID-19 vaccine for children couldn’t be a one-size-fits-all solution. With more things to consider, medical trials involving children undergo stricter protocols than those involving adults.
Pfizer-BioNTech announces successful vaccine trial for children
Pfizer-BioNTech recently announced that phase 3 of the trial for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15 years old with or without prior evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections demonstrated 100 percent efficacy and robust antibody responses. The trial included 2,260 children.
“From the reports so far, it appears that not only does the vaccine elicit a good immune response, but it was very, very safe for the children and adolescents who received the vaccine,” said Dr. Camille Sabella, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the trial.
In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group (1,129 children) versus none in the vaccinated group (1,131 children). The results showed that the vaccine was equally effective at producing an antibody response in younger children as compared to the teens and young adults between the ages 16 and 25 years old from an earlier trial.
Dr. Sabella said that the results from the phase 3 trial will need to undergo peer review and be presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to get an authorization for emergency use.
Pfizer-BioNTech reported that the side effects were consistent with those reported during their earlier trial with 16- to 25-year-old participants. According to the company, all participants in the trial will be monitored for long-term protection and safety for an additional two years after their second dose.
The company also announced that it has started a global study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of their COVID-19 vaccine in children aged 6 months to 11 years old.
Other pharmaceutical companies conducting their own studies
Moderna has also started its study with children under 12 a few weeks ago. The company is expecting around 6,750 healthy children in the U.S. and Canada to participate in the trial.
Earlier in March, Johnson & Johnson said it is likely to have a COVID-19 vaccine for children under 18 by September. The company is also planning to start testing adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 and then down to infants.
Meanwhile, a trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on children has temporarily stopped while the United Kingdom’s drug regulator – Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – investigates the vaccine’s possible link with rare blood clots in adults.
Oxford University said in a statement that there were “no safety concerns” in the trial, but acknowledged fears over a potential link to clots by saying that it was awaiting additional data from Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) before restarting the study.
“Parents and children should continue to attend all scheduled visits and can contact the trial sites if they have any questions,” Oxford stated.
Vaccination should not be a prerequisite to have children back in school
Children have generally experienced milder problems from COVID-19 and most of them don’t have significant symptoms. However, some children have become severely ill from acute COVID-19 or from post-COVID-19 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).
Health experts also say children can still transmit the virus. That’s why they deem it important to protect the children from the disease.
But Dr. Sabella does not believe that vaccinating children should be a prerequisite to have them back in school.
“We’ve learned over the last few months that children can be in school safely as long as all the precautions are taken to keep them safe with social distancing, masking and proper hand hygiene. Many school districts have done a wonderful job with this. Vaccination will just be one more step in helping people, especially parents, feel more comfortable with sending kids back to school,” Dr. Sabella said.
“It’s important for kids to do the things that they like doing. It’s good for their physical and mental health. However, we still need to take all of the precautions that are in place.”
Even without government compulsory vaccination, Big Tech is doing its bit to shame the unvaccinated, and there will be tremendous social pressure to conformity and guilt put upon such people.
“On April Fool’s Day, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly announced that his social media platform is unveiling new “Covid vaccine profile frames” that users can add to their profile pictures to shame their unvaccinated friends and family members into getting jabbed for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
The plan is to digitally segregate vaccinated and unvaccinated people on Facebook to highlight who the “good vaccinated citizens” are, and contrast them with the “bad unvaccinated citizens.”
“If we’re going to stop Covid,” Zuckerberg wrote, “we need everyone who’s eligible to get vaccinated.”
“People are more likely to get vaccinated if they see friends, family and people they trust doing it too. So we’re launching new Covid vaccine profile frame [sic] that you can add to your profile pic, partnering with the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to launch new Covid vaccine profile frames.”
According to Zuckerberg, the new virtue signaling feature will let Facebook users “easily show” their support for Chinese virus injections.
“And we’ll show you in News Feed your friends who have put up this profile frame,” Zuckerberg added.
Zuckerberg’s segregation plan will make it easier than ever for Facebook users to make instant determinations about those in their social circles concerning how much they “care” about “saving lives” based on their vaccination status.
“Now, everyone can make a snap judgment about the worthiness of their friends as human beings based upon a shallow virtue-signaling profile picture frame,” writes Ulysses S. Tennyson for 100percentfedup.com.
“Welcome to the digital world in which everything you do (or don’t do) places you on an immutable list that can be used at any point in time against you.”
It’s time to delete Facebook
When the company is not busy stealing elections, Facebook apparently spends an inordinate amount of time coming up with new ways to try to manipulate its users into destroying their lives with experimental gene therapy cocktails. Zuckerberg himself has personally taken on this mission, anyway.
Or perhaps Zuckerberg is simply following his marching orders, which clearly come from outside sources like the CDC and HHS. Facebook, after all, is a deep state spying and surveillance tool and pretty much always has been.
As the platform has done with numerous other campaigns like “Stay Home, Stay Safe” … Facebook is once again training its users to virtue signal with a profile photo overlay that is intended to convey a message of I’m better than you for actually caring.
Zuckerberg’s virtue signaling message is a bit more veiled, but the intent is still there. His goal is to convince as many Facebook users as possible to get vaccinated and trumpet that fact to their friends and family members until everyone is either brainwashed or bullied into complying.
“The message, on its face, is so shallow and trite,” says Tennyson. “Yet, in reality, it is not at all innocuous.”
“For the people who use Facebook, it will be an overt psychological manipulation to view their friends who are not like them as Covid enemies. Facebook likely knows this, yet will proceed with this divisive maneuver meant to highlight good vaccinated people versus the bad unvaccinated people.”
Many commenters agree that Zuckerberg is intentionally pitting one group of his users against another, the purpose being to goad the “non-compliers” into complying.
“He knows what’s in it,” wrote one skeptical commenter who does not actually believe that Zuckerberg is going to get vaccinated. “No way he or any of the other globalist billionaires will be taking it or any of the other vaccines they will be rolling out the assembly line.”
We need to see Zucky vaccinated, the syringe delivered by a neutral party.
Comments