The Permanent Vaccination Commission has caved in to media and political pressure and now wants to recommend the Corona vaccination for children and adolescents. As announced, the institution wants to"accommodate politics". Political pressure on scientists and the willingness of some scientists to fulfill political “wishes” are two threatening aspects in the corona debate.
The Permanent Vaccination Commission (StiKo) is now in favor of corona vaccinations for all children and adolescents from twelve years. After “evaluating new scientific observations”, it was concluded that" according to current knowledge, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of very rare vaccine side effects, " the panel said on Monday and referred to a draft decision. StiKo has so far recommended the corona vaccination in the age group only to those who have certain previous diseases. The official new recommendation text of StiKo is not yet available, changes are still possible in a voting procedure with federal states and experts, as media reports. The explanation of StiKo can be found at this link.
Kick-off for unscrupulous vaccination enthusiasts
Although the vaccination of children and adolescents should be carried out “unchanged” only after medical information for the benefit and risk. It is also “expressly opposed to making vaccination a prerequisite for social participation in children and adolescents”. But despite such restrictions, which in practice are likely to fall mercilessly under the table, it must be noted: the StiKo is buckled. As great as the respect for their temporary steadfastness on the issue of children’s vaccination was, so great is now the disappointment with the expert group. She humiliated herself.
Also, StiKo has now given the go-ahead for mutually surpassing demands of those vaccination enthusiasts who have already ignored the previous cautious StiKo recommendation, for example, by the health ministers of the federal government and the Länder agreed on “broader vaccination offers for children” at the beginning of August. Fueled by the announced StiKo recommendation, politicians especially from the CDU, SPD, Greens and LEFT would like to send the “vaccination teams” to school tomorrow, CSU staff also wants to reach out to the children under twelve years.
Reservations about “mobile vaccination teams” at schools, for example due to impending peer pressure or conflicts carried into families, go unheard as do the references to the non-existent corona risk of the children or the unknown long-term effects of the experimental corona vaccines. Once again, the icy social coldness of many politicians and journalists is currently affecting children and families. Vaccination campaigns in schools must be strictly and fundamentally rejected. Those who speak out in favour can have no child’s best interests in mind.
The anti-scientific struggle of many journalists and politicians against the StiKo recommendation is an example of a dominant feature of the Corona period: “Experts” only apply something as long as they support the government’s repressive corona course. But if this is not the case, as with StiKo and children’s vaccinations, then “science”, which is otherwise so often invoked, is unscrupulously ignored, put under pressure and sabotaged: Political calls for a “reconstruction” of the resistant StiKo have already been heard. This threat was possibly averted by the now announced “good behavior” of StiKo.
“We will try to accommodate politics a bit”
StiKo member Martin Terhardt said according to the media a few days ago about the motivations of StiKo to reconsider the current restrained vaccination recommendation for children, among other things:
“We will try to accommodate politics a bit.”
Such attitudes are also exemplary for the Corona episode. If the result “justifies” the destructive official corona policy, it is partly intensively bent and tricked in the field of “science”: With unbelievable stubbornness, absolute numbers have been presented as meaningful for 18 months, the simplest rules of statistics are ignored, a “data collection disaster” and a deliberate state of “ignorance” is caused. In addition, all the insights gained in the meantime are ignored, all of which are contrary to the corona scaremongering and the lockdown principle: for example, the dubious counting of the “deceased with or with the virus” or the questionable statements of the PCR tests or the unfounded fear of the destroyed life expectancy or the unfounded fear of too few intensive care beds or the excess mortality or the “ignorance” of the government on the concrete effects of lockdowns.
In addition to the world hunger increased by the corona measures, attention must also be drawn to the explosion of wealth and poverty, the deprivation of fundamental rights, the bans on protests, the impending mass control and surveillance, the imprisoned children and the elderly condemned to die alone. And on the fact that it can now be established without any doubt that the extremely destructive effects of the lockdown policy are disproportionate to the potential danger of the real corona virus.
The triumph of the irrational
It is hard to believe that these attitudes, which are contrary to reason, justice and common sense, have dominated our lives for 18 months now. A society already socially and politically divided by an unjust and liberal economic policy before Corona was further polarized and highly dangerous by the destructive lockdown policy. All this lockdown defenders accept approvingly. We do not have a health emergency first, we have a political-media emergency, which is characterized by campaigns and irrationality. With StiKo, another institution has now moved into the camp of irrationality.
“How streamlined and without regard to losses almost all relevant social groups have adapted to the Corona campaigns is shown by the surprise that captures you when once participants do not (immediately) submit to the overwhelming “narrative” of “pandemic control”. And when the persuasion machine, which runs as if lubricated, briefly stutters. The (preliminary) “resistance” of STIKO and others against the blanket vaccination of children therefore shows, on the one hand, that it is still possible to contradict the still extremely uniform presentation of the corona situation. On the other hand, as I said, it also shows the opposite: resistance even to the most obvious social aberrations is now an absolute rarity.”
Million vaccinations due to two deaths?
One could object to the fact that in" science " new conclusions are imposed by new findings. In this respect, this article could also be described here as dishonest pressure on a decision by StiKo. It is also said in many places that the new view of StiKo is not based on political pressure, but on the evaluation of new data. But is that credible? As StiKo’s final statement has not yet been published, it is not yet possible to conclude this in detail. The present StiKo declaration cites, among other things, findings from the children’s vaccination program in the USA for the change of mind. However, statements such as these, which are based on “modelling”, are already very sceptical:
“Finally, current mathematical modeling, which takes into account the now dominant delta variant, showed that children and adolescents are significantly more at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a possible 4th wave of infection. "
In addition, despite all the uncertainties, it is already certain that some fundamental statements on central issues of child vaccination have not changed – the StiKo chairman Thomas Mertens recently summarized:
“There were 2 deaths in Germany in the age group, so the 0,001 percent. But both were already very seriously ill before Covid-19. For healthy children and adolescents of the age group, the risk of dying from Covid-19 is currently statistically zero.”
Is the risk of corona vaccinations also zero? And how could StiKo and the vaccination enthusiasts in the media and politics ever be responsible for the long-term effects of the experimental corona vaccines on children and young people, which cannot yet be estimated? The important principle of vaccination should not be discredited here, but: The situation with the new and experimental corona substances is completely different than with adequately researched,” classic " vaccines, the development of which is to be welcomed. And even with the experimental Corona vaccines, a “vaccination offer” to adults(!) in my opinion acceptable – if it remained an offer and was not forced by massive indirect constraints, as it can now be observed.
The fact that lockdown enthusiasts now want to blame critics of the lockdowns as scapegoats for the catastrophic social consequences of the lockdowns, because they do not want to be vaccinated for good reasons, is an act of grandiose hypocrisy. In addition to the health concerns before the experimental vaccines, there are also political motives against vaccination: Many citizens do not want to give an alleged “consent” to the unsustainable official “corona narrative” and the destructive corona policy through vaccination.