Informed Consent on Behalf of Children

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 15 Nov 2021

Diane Perlman | Substack - TRANSCEND Media Service

A Checklist for Pfizer BioNTech Injections for Ages 5 – 11

“… We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.”
Professor Eric Rubin of Harvard University, testifying before FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 26 Oct 2021, on myocarditis and deaths, before voting to approve.

14 Nov 2021 – Children are not capable of informed consent. Most parents and guardians trust the FDA, CDC, school authorities, and mainstream media. Most believe that the mRNA shots are necessary, safe, effective, and the only way to safely open schools, have parties and sleepovers, hug grandparents, travel and finally end the Covid pandemic.

For children under 12, there is no adequate safety data, and none on myocarditis, a disabling, life-threatening heart condition that only appeared after clinical trials on young people, mostly males. Athletes around the world are dropping dead on the field from heart damage. The experiment begins now.

Pop-up “clinics” are being rushed out to schools and other places around the country to mass “vaccinate” children as quickly as possible. Here is an example of a consent form, and another. They left a few things out.

The risks of injecting children are not trivial and some may be irreversible. Based on the data from Israel and 12 – 17-year-olds, adverse events, AEs, serious adverse events, SAEs, permanent injuries and disabilities and deaths are inevitable.

I am bound by a personal and professional ethical duty to warn, and familiar with the the Nuremberg Code which requires fully informed consent, so I created this consent form on behalf of children. It can be printed and the second side can be checked and signed. It is also pasted in the text below.

Fully Informed Consent Checklist For Pfizer Biontech Injections For Children ∙ PDF File –Read now

Lack of Safety Data

Studies used to justify approval for children from 5 – 11 were conducted on very few subjects and followed for a ridiculously short period of time. Subjects who had adverse reactions were eliminated from the study. There is zero information on potential long-term effects. And, there are at least Ten red flags in the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product.

Loving, protective, frightened parents believe there was a legitimate, independent, scientific process that led 17 of 18 members of FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), with financial ties to Pfizer 2021, to vote that the benefits outweighed the risks. Dr. Michael Kurilla abstained having voiced concerns. All 14 members of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted for approval on November 2.

At all of these meetings they wildly exaggerate the threat of Covid for children, ignore the data, dismiss natural immunity, and minimize, deny and hide the data on adverse reactions, injuries, disabilities and deaths. How is it they don’t know that healthy children have zero risk of dying from Covid.

Some panelists minimized the incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis, falsely claiming that cases were mild and resolved quickly, had different causes and that there were more cases caused by the vaccines. They completely ignored all other known risks, except for the usual swelling, fever chills, headache.

The final vote was always a done deal. There was a pretense of going through the motions of a voting process while doses for 28 million children were on their way and thousands of pop up clinical were scheduled.

At the October 26 VRBPAC meeting, 17 voted Yes despite problems raised, questions unanswered, and awkward, illogical justifications for their vote . Panelists blatantly disregarded over 142,000 written public comments by knowledgeable citizens warning of dangers and urging them to vote No. Dr. Jay Portnoy, the consumer representative said he received 4000 emails asking him to vote No. Guess how he voted?

They disregarded brilliant challenges made with data by some selected to make 3 minute public comments permitted during a one-hour comment period. Here is one from Brian Dressen, husband of Brianne, who was eliminated from trial data.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – coronawise.substack.com

_____________________________________________

Diane Perlman, PhD   is a clinical and political psychologist, devoted to applying knowledge from psychology, conflict studies and social sciences to designing strategies and policies to reverse nuclear proliferation, to drastically reduce terrorism, reduce enmity, and to raise consciousness about nonviolent strategies for tension reduction and conflict transformation. She is a visiting scholar at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, is active in Psychologists for Social Responsibility, the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, and on the Global Council of Abolition 2000. Some of her writings can be found on her websites, www.consciouspolitics.org  and  www.SanityandSurvival.com. Email: dianeperlman@gmail.com.


Tags: , , , ,

 

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

*

code

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.