It is the next step on the way to the incapacitation of parents and the elimination of the right to physical self-determination: children and adolescents are subjected to experimental gene therapy – and schools are to play a key role in the implementation of the vaccination agenda.
by Daniel Matissek and Vanessa Renner
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) secretly introduced an indirect definition of how consent to vaccinate children can be obtained as early as 2014, without the public noticing it so far: by being present at school. By participating in lessons in a vaccination school, the corresponding “information” and “education” of the pupil or the parents is assumed.
So in the WHO-Dokument “Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old” described as a “common approach for obtaining consent to vaccination”:
An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.
An implicit consent process in which parents are informed of an upcoming vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes with letters sent directly to the parents. Thereafter, the physical presence of the child or adolescent with or without an accompanying parent during the vaccination is deemed to be consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are implicitly expected to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination. This may include the child or young person not being able to go to school on a vaccination day if the vaccination is provided by schools.
The said “opt-out principle” is even positively emphasized by the WHO because the “acceptance” of the vaccination is so higher. In truth, in this way it is likely that many parents who have not heard of the “communication” of the vaccination campaign are ignored – because in fact, specific messages to the parents are not the rule, but are only sent “sometimes”.
Horror scenario for concerned parents
The WHO “considerations” are general and are not tailored to individual countries, Therefore, at the end of the document, it is recommended that each country independently obtain information on various, including legal, aspects. Authorities that carry out or supervise a vaccination program are therefore encouraged, among other things:
- “to collect information on the informed consent (legal) requirements for medical interventions (including age of consent and consent) at national, sub-national and institutional levels;“
- “to gather information about licensing procedures in institutions involved in the vaccination of older children, such as B. Educational Institutions;“
- “Develop an informed consent process adapted to the local situation, the capacities of the health system and, where applicable, the school system, that optimizes resource use and public health outcomes, while respecting the rights of the individual;“
If one comes to the conclusion in a country that an implicit consent procedure meets the “legal requirements” for the principle of informed consent when vaccinating children, nothing stands in the way of vaccination campaigns in schools: Parents who do not want their child to be vaccinated, but for whatever reason do not react in time and keep their child away from school on the relevant vaccination days, would simply have been unlucky. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the so-called “pandemic” at the latest, the interpretations of applicable law have been extremely dubious in a number of cases: From a legal point of view, all unequal treatment of unvaccinated persons is unlawful – but this does not prevent the government not only from pursuing its course, but also steadily tighten.
The WHO’s outlined ideas are of course not binding – the fact that such a recommendation can be inferred indirectly from the document should, however, give food for thought. Such an implicit consent procedure would come in very handy for politicians, which are increasingly trying to impose Covid vaccinations on children despite the extremely questionable risk-benefit ratio. For parents concerned, on the other hand, this scenario is sheer horror. In the end, you would be left completely alone with the possible side effects of the vaccination for your child. It is understandable that many parents are afraid of this. For this reason, the lawyers for fundamental rights made a sample letter available a while ago with which parents can make it clear to the school that they kgive consent for your child to be vaccinated.