Oxford University & AstraZeneca’s Toxic Vaccine Tested On Children

Oxford University & AstraZeneca's Toxic Vaccine Tested On Children

Oxford University & AstraZeneca’s Toxic Vaccine Tested On Children

Until four days ago, AstraZeneca was testing the Oxford University vaccine on children, before they halted the tests after an adult subject was reported to have developed symptoms of transverse myelitis, an inflammatory syndrome that affects the spinal cord, which is known to cause serious neurological disorder.

The previously untested COVID-1984 vaccine, which failed to cure monkeys of the virus [that has never been proven to exist], was being tested on children aged between 5 and 12 years old, with the alleged consent of their parents or guardians, despite the fact that their young bodies are much more susceptible to vaccine injury than adults.

Trial Inclusion Criteria

You want proof? Here lies Bill Gates funded Oxford University’s Trial Inclusion Criteria:

Adults aged 18 – 55 years (groups 4, 5, 6 and 11)
Adults aged 56-69 years (groups 1, 7, and 9)
Adults aged 70 years and older (groups 2, 8, and 10)
Children aged 5-12 years inclusive (group 3)
Able and willing (in the Investigator’s opinion) to comply with all study requirements.
Willing to allow the investigators to discuss the volunteer’s medical history with their General Practitioner and access all medical records when relevant to study procedures.
For females of childbearing potential only, willingness to practice continuous effective contraception (see below) during the study and a negative pregnancy test on the day(s) of screening and vaccination.
Agreement to refrain from blood donation during the course of the study.
Provide written informed consent.
Parent/Guardian provides informed consent.


Uninformed Consent

How can anybody give ‘informed consent’ for their children to take part in a new vaccine trial, when there was no information to inform their consent before the trial began?

The answer is, they can’t, because informed consent necessarily means consent to take specific risks, which is simply impossible with a vaccine that has never been tested on humans, since the risks are still necessarily unknown, until they have been thoroughly assessed and ascertained.

Moreover, if a parent acquired the untested substance and injected it into their child, who then developed serious injury as a result, the parent could be held liable for Grievous Bodily Harm in a criminal court and the child could potentially sue for damages in later life.

Gross Negligence & Fraud

In other words, there is no such thing as informed consent when the risks of taking a vaccine are unknown. There can only be blind uninformed consent to potential injury, which is often held to be gross negligence in law.

So any such uninformed consent purporting to be informed consent is null and void, on the ground that Oxford University and AstraZeneca have negligently relied upon dishonest statements in procuring the consent of the subjects in the trial. Just like the government’s attempt to make Big Pharma immune from criminal prosecution and civil damages claims. Fraud, by another name.

Read More in Critical Thinking

Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged , , , .