They Are Stating Opinions, Not Facts

Steve Kirsch

stevekirsch.substack.com

Founder, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (vacsafety.org)

Executive summary

Check out this recent court decision from a Canadian judge. It explains why the courts should NOT take judicial notice of the opinions of health authorities (like most of them do) that the vaccines are “safe and effective.”

Introduction

In this case, the parents disagree on whether their children should be vaccinated.

The father is red-pilled; the mom is blue-pilled.

All three kids are COVID-recovered.

Mom of course wants to vaccinate the kids. The Dad does not.

The judge has ruled that the opinion of the health authorities (“safe and effective”) should NOT be taken as fact because reasonable people don’t agree the health authorities are right. This is a huge shift from previous rulings which have gone along with the health authorities as the subject-matter experts. This judge isn’t buying it.

This case is now going to trial where the court will hear from experts to decide the issue.

Who will win?

In my opinion, the mom will lose. My reasoning is this:

1. The Pfizer trial for 12-16 year-olds enrolled just 1,000 kids. One of those kids, Maddie de Garay, is paralyzed for life, and it happened <24 hours from her shot. So the best evidence we have is 1 out of 1,000 kids ends up in a wheelchair for life.
2. AFAIK, there is no evidence of a healthy kid in the US dying from COVID. Ever.
3. There is no evidence that the COVID vaccine reduces death from COVID. It simply doesn’t exist.
4. There is no evidence that the COVID vaccines kill fewer than 1 child per 10M injected. That is how safe it would have to be to risk injecting a kid.
5. The kids are already COVID recovered. See 557: “The evidence before the court is that each of the three children had COVID-19, appeared to have had mild symptoms, and recovered from it. The uncontradicted evidence is that all three children are currently healthy and happy.” There is no benefit to additional vaccination. They already have protection which is many-fold stronger than a vaccine can ever provide.
6. The Cleveland Clinic study showed the more you vaccinate, the more likely you are to get COVID.
7. There is no precedent in medicine that natural immunity + vaccine provides stronger immunity. We are already in the 1 in 10M+ risk category for the kids since they are COVID-recovered. What absolute risk reduction does the mom think she can achieve with the incremental shot and what is her evidence of that? And how can the benefit possibly overcome the very real risk of 1 in 1,000 paralysis or the ~1 in 100,000 risk of death from the vaccine?

Summary

If this case is properly contested, mom will lose.

No child should ever be vaccinated. This is not a close call.

If you have a doctor who thinks kids should be vaccinated with the COVID vaccine, it’s time to find a new doctor.