Doctors say ‘No’, politicians say ‘Go’. Stop the 5-to-11s ‘offer’

by Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)

Doctors say ‘No’, politicians say ‘Go’. Stop the 5-to-11s ‘offer’

by Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)
Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)
Case Owner
Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council: an independent group of senior health professionals and scientists challenging irrational and unethical government policies on covid vaccines for children.
22
days to go
£49,160
pledged of £200,000 stretch target from 1,061 pledges
Pledge now
Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)
Case Owner
Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council: an independent group of senior health professionals and scientists challenging irrational and unethical government policies on covid vaccines for children.
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: May 17, 2022

Claim issued in the High Court

This claim against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and JCVI was formally issued on 16 February 2022 in the High Court in London.

The names of the Claimants, a mother with her boy and…

Read more

In an unprecedented move, members of the British medical establishment, convened by the CCVAC, are launching a legal challenge against the UK government’s ‘offer’ of a covid ‘vaccine’ to healthy 5-to-11-year-olds, on behalf of a British mother and her children.

Beverley Turner, radio and TV personality and leading campaigner for child protection, is spearheading the funding support. 

The case employs the same top legal team that is challenging the government on the 12-15-year-old roll-out (for official reasons, the team is obliged to open a new case for this younger age group.)

In the absence of an independent critical media or political opposition on this issue, this is the only opportunity there will ever be to force the government to account for its decision. 

Without the funds to bring this case, officials will get off unchallenged and we will have set a dangerous precedent for healthcare policy in this country. 

We have an extremely strong argument, and while this does not necessarily translate into a high probability of winning in court, it is of vital importance that these arguments are made – and the government’s response recorded – to form part of an immutable public record.  

The government has recently begun to climb down on many covid policies as the evidence becomes too obvious to ignore, but it is stubbornly pushing ahead with the least logical, most reckless policy of all – experimental pharmaceutical interventions on our children. 

The complete lack of any risk-benefit case for children is set out in a letter that has been sent to the government, with two 'must-read' annexes that list the facts and evidence in support.

The weakness of the government’s position is signalled by use of the word ‘offer’ – intended to imply a freedom-of-choice when parents and children have been denied basic information on the vaccine and its (side-) effects (on the basis they are unqualified to judge the risk). This is not informed consent; it is a false choice. 

Our legal team will dismantle this grossly irresponsible policy, piece by piece, and show:

  • Information is being hidden from the public
  • There is no benefit to children or anyone else
  • Adverse reactions are likely in the hundreds of thousands
  • There is demonstrable risk of life-changing injury
  • In a full roll-out, some deaths are to be expected

For the jaw-dropping detail, and as an excellent resource for parents to share, read:

Sweden has already refused to give them to healthy children on the basis they provide no benefit and Norway is also not recommending them. Florida is the first US state to actively recommend AGAINST vaccinating healthy children. The UK must follow their lead. 

There is an emergency, but it’s not from a virus. It’s from this negligent policy.

Read the Annexes, see for yourself. Then help us make a difference:

Please pledge your support for this case.  

The costs will be in six figures and every donation counts. 

Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 1

Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)

May 17, 2022

Claim issued in the High Court

This claim against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and JCVI was formally issued on 16 February 2022 in the High Court in London.

The names of the Claimants, a mother with her boy and girl aged between 5 and 11, will remain anonymous.  Links to the claim documents are below.  They are well worth reading by everyone and a valuable resource with many links to source materials.

In headlines:

  • the case remains no benefit to children but many significant risks of harm
  • the absolute abandonment of principles of informed consent is addressed head on
  • the assertion by the MRHA, that there are no signals of harm from the Covid-19 vaccines is challenged, especially in relation to Yellow Card and VAERS reporting is irrational (as is shown by with comparison with their response to influenza vaccine monitoring)
  • the JCVI and MHRA are called out for using out of date information and getting their calculations wrong as a result
  • where heart inflammation results, to dismiss it as 'mild' and with 'full recovery' ignores the very poor mid to long term prognosis for a significant percentage

The 'doctors who say no' give their support with a comprehensive statement from consultant paediatrician Dr Ros Jones, MD, FRCPCH from CCVAC setting out the facts. 

In the correspondence to date the government has sought to evade direct questions put to them (see Annex A Benefits and Annex B Risk of Harms).  They can run, but they must not be allowed to hide.  This is one reason why this claim is so important. We must put on record what is being done to our children and who is allowing this. 

Please donate to the case if you can.  This case needs your support.

Links to:

    There are no public comments on this case page.