Parents of children in the 12-17 age group want Government officials to release real-time safety data for Covid vaccines. One mother is so concerned about the possibility that her three children could suffer serious adverse events that she asked the High Court on their behalf to force full public disclosure.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) admits it holds the figures but has not revealed them publicly, so last Thursday parent EF, who cannot be named for legal reasons, put her concerns to Mr Justice Jonathan Swift and asked him to direct the ONS to release the data. Her request was denied.
She said: “I’m not surprised. I feel as though the judge had already made up his mind.”
To those of us in court, it certainly felt as though he had and that no one dared question Health Secretary Sajid Javid’s decisions.
Television and radio presenter Beverley Turner, who helped raise over £100,000 to fund the action and who has been vilified for asking questions about the vaccines’ safety, was also there. She said: “It felt that the judge had already decided the outcome. He was hostile to the plaintiffs and convivial to the defendants. All we’re doing is fighting for transparency and for that, we got a hostile response.”
It is known that Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA Covid vaccines can cause the inflammatory heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis, mostly in young males, while the Oxford/AstraZeneca can cause blood clots and strokes. We do not know to what extent, and whether children have died or been permanently disabled as the result of a Covid vaccination.
EF’s children AB and CD applied to the courts last September to halt the vaccine rollout for 12-17-year-olds and asked for a judicial review. They say they need the ONS figures to support an appeal as the application was denied.
Their mother, who is their ‘litigation friend’ EF, said: “The court was told that only two children without diagnosed underlying conditions have died of Covid so far. Clearly Covid is not a problem for young people but the vaccine may be. All we want is honest disclosure of the figures so that parents can make an informed decision. None of us are anti-vaccine but we are concerned by the lack of safety data for Covid jabs.
“We know the mRNA vaccines are experimental and that they are being offered under emergency use. We also know that the trials do not officially finish until 2023. Many parents do not want their children to be guinea pigs.”
After reviewing the evidence, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommended against vaccinating 12-15-year-olds, but were overridden by the UK’s four Chief Medical Officers.
Up to December 22nd, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who assess the safety of new drugs, had received 2,546 reports of adverse events (likely to be 10% of the true total) for under 18s via their Yellow Card self-reporting scheme, but give details only about heart inflammation.
A statement said: “As of November 17th, 2021, there have been 432 reports of myocarditis and 332 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Pfizer vaccine. There have been 101 reports of myocarditis and 57 reports of pericarditis following the use of the Moderna vaccine. This is a recognised potential risk with the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine and COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and the MHRA is closely monitoring these events.”
We know that 2.9 million children have received first doses of Pfizer and 20,550 have had first doses of Moderna, while 11,600 children have received first doses of Oxford/AstraZeneca’s vaccine (though it is no longer recommended for the under 40s because that age group is more susceptible to potentially fatal blood clots). Nearly a million under 18s have received second shots.
The action was brought by solicitor Stephen Jackson of the firm Jackson Osborne and argued by barrister Francis Hoar, who endured constant interruption from Mr. Justice Swift. He presented evidence to the court from consultant pathologist Dr. Clare Craig.
Dr. Craig said that available ONS figures relating to the number of deaths in the 15-19-year-old age group showed “a trend of excess non-Covid deaths in boys of that age which exceeded deaths for previous years.”
From May 1st 2021 to December 30th 2021, 402 male deaths were recorded, 34.6% above the five-year average between 2015 and 2019. The number for females for the same period was 163, a decrease compared with the five-year average of 175.
Barrister Heather Emmerson, representing the ONS, who did not incur the wrath of Mr. Justice Swift, said: “We do not accept a significant increase in deaths of boys compared with previous years. This is because it is statistically difficult to calculate a mean mortality rate.”
She did however accept “that there is a marginal increase in mortality for that period, but the figures should be treated with caution. The differences are sufficiently small that they could be caused by a delay in the registration of the death”.
Health Statistician for the ONS Dr. Vahé Nafilyan said in a statement that they had only 62% of the data requested as 38% of deaths had yet to be registered. Potentially, the mortality margin could increase by as much as 38% or decrease by the same amount or somewhere in between.
An inquest is required when a coroner believes a death was due to something other than natural causes. The death cannot be registered until the coroner has reviewed the post-mortem and other evidence and has decided the cause. There is a 12-month delay for inquests currently.
Ms. Emmerson said she was not confident that if the ONS released the available data the recipients would interpret it correctly – a statement the plaintiffs found patronising. “We have to be extremely careful about this data and the conclusions that may be drawn,” she told the court.
She was also concerned that although data would be anonymous with no names, dates of birth or regions released, the children’s identities could be discovered, citing newspaper reports of sudden child deaths which could be linked to the data.
Mr Justice Swift said: “Correlation does not equal causation and the ONS information is not necessary to decide that claim.”
None of this helps parents who are also concerned that by asking reasonable questions they are being labelled as anti-vaxx. Mother of three Bev Turner said: “I’d never heard the term before 2021. All parents want is the latest safety data that is simply not available so we do not know if the vaccines could cause neurological problems, fertility issues or other physiological problems.”
Parent EF, who has two girls aged 13 and 16 eligible for vaccination, and a son aged seven, currently too young to receive the jab, says that because of this uncertainty her children are anxious about receiving it.
“None of them want to take the vaccine,” she said, “and one of them has a friend who fainted immediately after receiving the vaccine and was then off school for two weeks. We don’t know any details other than that, but she was clearly unwell otherwise she would have been at school. ‘We have no information. They can’t tell us if the jabs cause cancer or blindness and until we know, how can we make a properly informed decision?”
Sally Beck is a freelance journalist with 30 years’ experience writing for national newspapers and magazines. This article was first published in TCW Defending Freedom.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great article.. will most certainly share..
Great piece, Chris.
In other news, Boris cancelled for a few fibs about some birthday cake and outrage from the beer and curry enjoyers.
No big fan of Boris, but compared with 40 years of increasingly deranged climate lies and enormous exaggerations from “The Science”, I doubt that the cause of truthfullness will benefit.
Of course, Bunter was as addicted to GangGreen lies, as is an 80 a day Capstan Full Strength smoker is to Nicotine.
And although he got 14 Million votes in 2019 to “Get Brexit Done” (but only half-got the job done. At best.), I would much rather have seen him go because of just those shortcomings and because he surrendered far too easily to the Covid gangsters; rather than be ousted by Harriet Harperson and Angela Rayner, who by any measure were, are, always will be, far worse than Boris!
Thank you. Well stated. Yes no science to this cult, just ‘$cience’ – and of course they will be telling us that the ‘boiling oceans’ are linked to future scamdemics and scariants.
The below is wonderful as a summary, I call it $cientism, the corruption of real science for metaphysical ends:
And it is pushing it even further to suggest that most oceanic warming is caused by humans adding just 4% to all atmospheric carbon dioxide, a gas that is only measured in trace quantities at around 400 parts per million. It is beneath the water that we can profitably find some answers about changing oceanic temperatures.
Beneath the water means real science. That is beyond the skills of the Klimat-tards.
There is going to be another private jet fuel burning bonanza at the COP 28 event in Dubai later this year. Something tells me Chris will not be one of their guest speakers.
Someone in the Nanny State didn’t get the message about boiling oceans: they were “advising” us to be careful going in the water during the current hot spell (ie normal June weather) because the water is still very cold.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, so why are sea levels apparently rising so rapidly, and the rate of rise apparently accelerating?
For example, see Fig. 8 in:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175#:~:text=The%20MSL%20at%20Newlyn%2C%20computed,above%20the%20Observatory%20Zero%20Datum.
This paper gives a century’s worth of sea level data, from 1915, at Newlyn in west Cornwall. It implies that from 1993-2014 sea level was rising by a massive 3.8 mm per year. (Incidentally, the isostatic rise accounts for perhaps only 0.7 mm per year at Newlyn.)
Genuine question.
The official statement is;
Due to the measurements from the Newlyn Tidal Observatory, it has been established that between 1915 and 2015 sea level at Newlyn has increased at 1.83mm/year and between 1993 and 2014 at 3.8mm/year, as shown below.
Sea level rise has many causes;
Not sure if that helps at all?
Well yes, that sort of makes my point. If isostatic rise (i.e. the land sinking, in this case) is about 0.7 mm a year, then we are left with an actual sea level rise of 3.1 mm a year – which is massive.
As I understand it, actual sea level rise is closely related to temperature – expansion with increasing temperature and overall mass/volume increase owing to ice melting. Thus, one way or another, the sea level rise presumably points to a great deal of warming.
I’m not saying I’m definitely right or anything, just trying to understand. If Mr Morrison is saying that there isn’t much temperature increase, where is the level rise coming from?
I don’t know if he or any of the editorial team reads these comments, but I would like to hear any alternative views as what is going on.
In short, doesn’t seal level rise point strongly to increase in temperature?
If you imagine 3.1 mm per year (or a foot in a Century) is “massive”, then maybe you’d be happier with three masks on, five times jabbed and hiding behind the sofa.
Or you might wish to rely on actual measurements at tide gauges around the planet, allowing for measured isostatic rises, showing the actual rise for several hundred years has been and continues to be around two thirds of that, so eight inches or around 200mm a century. NO acceleration.
I suggest this is far more likely to be correct that the “computer models” based on satellite and buoy readings in the middle of the oceans, accurate (allegedly) to a tenth of a millimetre. Just think about that.
And interesting to note that no little islands anywhere have been losing their area in the last 50 years, with 80% gaining area. Only a few initially less that 10 Ha have got smaller.
Still panicking about 200mm in 100 years? Or (for the sake of argument) 400mm or 500mm?
Well, I think the Dutch managed pretty well with their dykes and polders. Dug by hand. Land up to 6 metres below high tide. Obviously, after we “Just Stop Oil” (not to mention cement, excavators, lorries, rollers etc.), the problem will seem a bit more urgent. In three hundred years, we might have to stop building solar farms and whirligigs, and build some more sea walls.
… you might wish to rely on actual measurements at tide gauges around the planet, allowing for measured isostatic rises, showing the actual rise for several hundred years has been and continues to be around two thirds of that, so eight inches or around 200mm a century. NO acceleration.
That Newlyn data paper I gave a link to earlier – that is indeed data from a tide gauge, and Fig. 8 does appear to show an acceleration since about 1990. And I’ve allowed for isostatic changes (e.g. 0.7 mm per year out of 3.1mm).
All things are relative. When you consider the sea level changes of say the last 4000 years then a foot a century is indeed very large. As I understand it, sea levels were close to static until the late 19th century, when they started to rise.
See:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1015619108
So I don’t know where you got your information from? Please feel free to provide sources, as I’ll read anything with an open mind. I only want to get at the truth.
And I understand that every extra foot that has to be built into a tidal barrier costs a great deal of money.
But my question wasn’t about that: it was about whether the elevated sea levels we are seeing are indeed the result of warming.
Going off line soon, so apolgies if I don’t get back on this thread anymore.
Off to a place, in the UK, where a foot rise in sea level would be a very important matter indeed.
Btw, never wore a mask, unstabbed, and took no notice of lockdiown rule.
When someone states that the rate of rise is accelerating it is important to clarify against what and what is the scale. For context please see the graphic below showing the sea levels over the last 20,000 years. It should be evident that there is no obvious or ‘ideal’ sea level, and it we think we can decide what the global sea level should be and maintain it then those thinking this are pathologically deluded. The scale of this graphic is in metres and not mm.
I don’t know what the ideal sea level is but I suggest that one that is significantly higher than current levels is far from ideal given that large proportion of humanity living in coastal areas.
Your chart is interesting. It appears to show that sea levels rose about 120 metres since the last ice age when global temperatures were about 6C lower than they are now. Makes you wonder how much they would change if got another 2C.
The Holocene Climate Optimum was hotter than now and perhaps by 2C. The tree line in the UK was much higher than now and the Sahara was green and wet. The Brecon Beacons had trees at the very top. So far tree lines haven’t budged in the last 200 years and if they have it has been localised. Also, as far as what is ideal – humans have populated just about everywhere on this planet and we have figured how to live in just about any of the 30 odd different climates. Humans have learned how to live/survive in -40C as well as +50C, or on the oceans or high up mountains where the atmosphere is thinner. We are supremely adaptable and inventive and it would be a bad idea if we stopped being adaptable and inventive.
There is nothing in the global temperature records that shows the glacial cycles of the last 3 million years have stopped. The last warm interlude ended while CO2 remained elevated so that trace gas is not going to stop the next glacial expansion happening. We have between 100 and 500 years before the next glacial expansion gets under way, and when that does, and judging by all previous cycles, it will be about 100,000 years till the next warm interval. If by some miracle we have stopped the next glacial expansion we will have dodged a massive bullet, but there is no evidence that is the case.
There is no such thing as a global temperature. That’s a mathematically created piece of fiction.
True.
Correct, all temperature is local.
Thanks for this – but it does illustrate how most of the post Ice Age sea water rise was owing to ice melting, and that this process was essentially complete by circa 2000 BC, or before. Clearly, the ending of an ice age would be expected to cause major changes in sea level.
Sea levels appear to have fluctuated over the following centuries and millennia, but there appears to have been a steep rise since the late 19th century which, according to the Newlyn data, appears to have accelerated since the 1990s.
So what is going on?
Incidentally, I haven’t got time to do the calculations right now (or at least remind myself how to do them), but I imagine that a ‘0.03 %’ total ocean heat rise, over the last 125 years – although it doesn’t sound much when put that way – would actually lead to an expansion of the water which itself would lead to a significant rise in sea level.
So are these rises in sea level over the last 125-150 years down to warming??
We are in an inter-glacial. The Ice Age hasn’t ended because there is significant ice at both poles and on the tops of mountains. While it is claimed that CO2. The following graphic shows temp/CO2 over the last 600 million years and it is clear there is no link between the two.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
Or
Per a new published study (Martins et al., 2023), during the Mid-Holocene (~7000 to ~4000 years ago), when CO2 was a “safe” ~265 ppm, the sea levels on the coasts of Brazil were 3 to 4 meters higher than they are now. Sea levels have been falling to the present levels for millennia.
From 1993-2015 the sea levels around South America sea have risen (shown in red in the figure) overall by about 1-2 mm/yr, but there are large regions where sea levels have fallen (blue, shown especially in the southeast, west) by -1-2 mm/yr too.
The Brazilian mangrove forest area has increased from 9,564 km² in 1985 to 9,800 km² in 2020, In other words, coastal mangrove forests grew seaward (rather than shrinking inland due to sea level rise) by 2.5%.
Korkai was a port city, capital, and the principal trade center for India’s Pandya Kingdom from the 6th to 9th centuries CE.
While Korkai was situated on the sea coast during the early stages of the Medieval Warm Period, the city center is now approximately 5 or 6 km from the coast. This confirms the sea has substantially receded since then.
Nautical maps from the 1805-1828 period clearly affirm the coast of southern India has continued expanding seaward in the last 200 years, despite the reported rise in relative sea level (Gupta and Bhoolokam Rajani, 2023).
In other words, much more coastal land area is above sea level today than during the Little Ice Age, or when CO2 levels were said to be 280 ppm.
GMO: a belated thanks for your two posts. I really don’t understand this sea-level change business. How can sea levels be rising in one place but falling in another? I thought eustatic change was assumed to be constant everywhere?
As far as eustatic changes are concerned, presumably there are a whole load of mechanisms in play of which CO2 levels play little or no direct part in.
‘boiling oceans’ ?
That means the oceans, or an ocean has to rise in temperature by a minimum of 80C? And this will be achieved by increasing the amounts of a trace gas?
Are there any scientifically literate people in the media or even the sciences?
Back in 1997 the NSF, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and the Japanese government cooperated in funding a research project called SHEBA (Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic).
One of the conclusion was that “melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns.”
The NSF was challenged and to their credit they did correct their error: [Editor’s note: An inaccurate statement about sea ice and rising sea levels has been deleted. We regret the error.]
However, it took 6.5 years for the NSF to eventually make this correction. One wonders what kind of ‘scientific’ education have science grads received, let alone science journalists?
No one is claiming the oceans will actually boil or anything like. That is just a figure of speech.
None of science or any trades are built on figures of speech. The largest voices in pushing the climate catastrophe so as to extort billions do assert such things and they are not scientists, but politicians, actors, pop stars and children. Here is Al Gore hyperventilating and he says “…that’s what’s boiling the oceans…”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ao8uEx0Ftik
For the record I have not received any money or coercion from ‘big oil’ and I am very capable of thinking things through for myself.
Almost everything we hear about the “Climate Crisis” is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures or climate. There is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event, no increase in the rate of sea level rise etc etc etc, but somehow people believe the opposite. ———How can that be? ——-Progaanda is a very powerful tool which is why government and its compliant media use it everyday.
0.03% of what? I can only think it means 0.03% of the heat that would be required to raise all the water in the oceans from absolute zero to current temperatures? If so, it is an utterly irrelevant figure.
A good article, thank you, a little sense on a Sunday
ITN Wales has a story about places in Wales disappearing under the sea in the near future due to rising sea levels. We are all going to Dai, where ever he is.
And remember that sea to air heat transfer, via the North Atlantic Drift, is something we rely on to a large extent, at UK latitude – especially to the west of Scotland.
Oceans are so vast and deep it takes hundreds to thousands of years for them to heat up and cool down. If there was a slight change in solar output then it would be a thousand years before it was noticed by oceans. So, similarly, any chages we see now are likely being caused by something that happened a thousand years ago, not by a slight rise in CO2 emissions in the last 50 years.
I’m not friend of or supporter of Greta but she did not say “Let’s not forget that according to Greta Thunberg ‘all of humanity’ is going to be wiped out in exactly 10 days time.”.
She said in 2018 that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years”.
She did not give a timeline when ‘all of humanity’ would be ‘wiped out’.
The pro-humanity-caused climate change industry/cult is prone to exaggerations, dubious claims and predictions that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Those who believe in natural climate change should not follow their lead and use exaggerations either.
Giving straight-forward facts should be enough.