Who will speak up for children?
"A society which tramples over the most vulnerable cannot be called civilised and must be called to account"
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
I would like to draw your attention to this most welcome recent article…
…from the The Owl Tree Substack, written by “a Christian thinker seeking wisdom, truth and beauty”.
The author — Helen from rural south-west England — explains how children have been “betrayed by our society” during the past four years or so.
She begins by recalling Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:14…
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven”
…and reminding us that:
Children are precious; a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured, protected, cared for and loved.
She reflects that:
Most people would probably agree with this statement, even if they may not accept that children are a gift from God. However, our society, along with many across the world, put these values to one side during the ‘covid era’. It may be more accurate to say that our society trampled all over these values and the children they are meant to protect.
Helen vividly recalls the first covid “lockdown” in 2020 and its effects on children — her own and those of others.
I remember, very early on, listening to someone warning of the potential harms to children which would be inflicted by lockdowns, and especially to those most vulnerable; those warnings were ignored. My concern for the welfare of children was one of the primary drivers of my opposition to lockdowns and other covid measures. The other main driver was my Christian faith which enabled me to discern the destructive and evil forces at play.
I am reminded of this testimony that begins with a mention of “plenty of Christians who had known something was wrong from the moment the church doors were slammed shut” in March 2020.
She continues:
I watched as the ‘experiment’ unfolded. I did what I could to advocate proper treatment of the children around me, and I listened to the voices who were speaking into the situation with reason, compassion, common-sense and moral judgment. These voices were too few, but they were fearless and determined.
Her stated aim in writing is to summarise what happened, the harms caused, who should be held to account, and what lessons must be learned. She draws on both her own experience and from other sources, including The Children’s Inquiry by Liz Cole & Molly Kingsley, which she describes as “a disturbing but important read”:
Before the main part of the article, she explains why the treatment of children is such a pressing issue and why people should read what she writes:
Children are too often overlooked in our society, and this was certainly the case during the ‘covid years’. A society which tramples over the most vulnerable cannot be called civilised and must be called to account.
The UK covid inquiry1 [is costing a fortune] but… without properly addressing any of the important issues which need investigating. The original scope for the inquiry didn’t even mention children. [Only] after this was pointed out [was it]… announced that a module would be included to look at ‘Children and Young People’.
The hearings for the inquiry are not due to finish until 2026. Thankfully, Liz Cole and Molly Kingsley have done much of the necessary work… [but] will [people] listen? As a society, do we really care?
Not least in the context of Jesus’ words above, those strike me as particularly important questions for all those who call themselves Christians.
In this post I will share extended highlights from the rest of the article, along with additional input here and there.
What our society did to children
Helen first describes in some detail the “covid measures” inflicted on children, while noting that from an early stage covid posed little or no risk to them, and that the harms caused were “almost entirely due to covid measures and not to the virus itself”.
School closures
Including nurseries, playgroups and colleges… for weeks or months at a time…sometimes complete closure and other times closed to particular year groups or other groupings… [e.g] children of ‘non-essential’ workers… Once testing began, children would be sent home from school for a number of days or weeks if they tested positive… or had been in ‘close contact’ with someone who had…
She notes that:
Before 2020, school closures were not a part of established pandemic plans, except in very extreme circumstances.
She cites Prof Robert Dingwall who recalls that:2
When I was involved in pandemic flu planning around 2005, 2006 we were always very clear that schools would never close, unless there were so many teachers off sick that you couldn’t provide a safe environment for the children. We were thinking a threshold of maybe 30, 40% of the teaching staff.
And she reminds us that in 2020 there were very few teachers off work who were actually sick with covid.
Home ‘learning’
Her concern for children is evident in her reservations about what she terms “home ‘learning’”:
The idea was that children would do their school work at home... but what if home is chaotic, cramped, noisy or abusive? [With] parents… also having to work from home, and… siblings [also] having to do school work at home with limited space and facilities.
She recalls that:
Some parents felt enormous pressure from schools to get work completed, which became increasingly difficult as the novelty for children soon wore off, and in many cases a downward spiral of frustration and disengagement began.
I suspect that many parents — and children — will recall similar experiences.
School restrictions
Helen laments the experience of children at school in the covid era:
As a parent, I cannot adequately describe how appalling school environments were for children when they were eventually ‘allowed’ back… our headteachers were among the more reasonable, yet it was an awful experience…
In secondary schools children were masked and teachers were masked, hampering communication and causing a raft of harms. Hand washing and hand ‘sanitising’ became an obsessive ritual. One-way systems, segregated areas, restrictions on play and lunchtimes, no sport, no music, no arts, no social activities, no parents or visitors from outside…
She quotes April Mackay, a teenager who blogs about her experiences:3
As I’ve described so many times, school was like a prison or a punishment… it was full of teachers… treating us like criminals… [and] going crazy if we spoke to someone in another year [or] took off our masks, went in the wrong ‘area’ [or] hugged anyone…
For a couple of weeks, they made my year group sit in classrooms at break, facing the wall and not being allowed even to turn our heads…
I am reminded of the “good German” discussed in this post, and this recent interview with former BBC Coast presenter Neil Oliver.
Mackay continues:
The school had a horrible, tense, smothering atmosphere and felt like a place you went to be punished. By Christmas, we’d had all we could take with lockdown and school being hell. Almost everyone’s mental health was in bits. So a second lockdown wasn’t a relief — it was the thing that broke us… three months of emptiness…
Presumably the “second lockdown” to which she refers — “the thing that broke us” — is the one that started early in 2021. Around the time when, judging by their actions, our political leaders evidently did not believe that covid posed much of a threat:
Helen goes on to remind us of…
Reductions/curtailment of children’s services
…including social work, health visiting, support for vulnerable and disabled children, medical care and respite support. In many cases these services provided a lifeline for children and families and they were simply stopped overnight.
And…
Social isolation
…playgrounds were shut, children’s sports, clubs and youth groups stopped, and children prevented from seeing family and friends.
If you haven’t seen it, I recommend watching this three-minute film Numb, made by a 15-year-old Canadian girl for a school project, which captures the nature of the social isolation we inflicted on children better than any words could:
Helen then turns her attention to three things which made some people very wealthy indeed during 2020-2021:
Testing
When schools eventually reopened, children were issued with testing kits and most schools expected children to be tested daily before going to school… invasive swabbing of the nasal cavities and throat, by untrained parents (or children themselves).
Who knows how many ‘false positives’ resulted… and let us hope that children were not physically damaged by these procedures which were far from pleasant (and no doubt far from accurate)…
Any reports of ‘positive cases’ resulted in a ripple of consequences. Sometimes whole classes were sent home to ‘isolate’, and sometimes just ‘close contacts’ after an Orwellian review of who the child had been seen to be in the vicinity of the previous day.
Masks
Children were expected to wear masks on school transport, in school corridors and even in the classroom… [some] for 8+ hours a day. The masking of children became a ‘norm’ in society, and I even know of parents who made their children wear masks in the home.
Helen refers to a short article she wrote last year — The Mask — in which she comments on the spiritual significance of face coverings. I found it a worthwhile read.
I still find it extraordinary that more people didn’t — and still don’t — ask more questions about what was really going on.
Vaccines
Helen then reminds us that:
In November 2020 the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, had said “this is an adult vaccine, for the adult population.”4 [But] gradually the target age groups became lower and eventually included children, despite the JCVI5 taking the view that the potential health benefits of vaccination in children did not outweigh the potential risks...
…a medication which posed an unknown risk to children… was given to children who were at no risk from the virus [even though significant-side effects in adult recipients were being acknowledged]. Why would a society do such a thing? With the erroneous and unethical belief that it would benefit those adults who were at some risk? This has chilling implications.
I am reminded of former Telegraph cartoonist Bob Moran’s Stab Vest:
Helen quotes pathologist Dr Clare Craig speaking on the Owl & Badger podcast:
They were telling the children who they were injecting that they were doing it for other people… What are you meant to make of that as a child? “So I am here to have my body used for the benefit of other people?”
She goes on to remind us that:
These injections were given in schools… and… some… children were injected without the consent of parents via a misuse of the ‘Gillick competence’ ruling.
Misleading messaging was also deliberately aimed at children. For example, on [BBC] Newsround… Prof Devi Sridhar of the University of Edinburgh claimed that trials showed the vaccine to be 100% safe for children.6 This was not true. It was a claim which could never be made for any medical intervention, but particularly not for one involving a new technology and which had received incomplete safety testing. This was just one example of the propaganda used to ‘persuade’ people (including children) to receive the vaccine.
And quotes Rev Dr William Philip — one of the few courageous UK church leaders I have seen speaking out against unethical covid policies — who rightly points out:
The ethics of trying to pressurise people into vaccination through sweeteners (“vaccines are the surest way to put covid behind us and for students to reclaim the freedoms that enrich university life”) or threats (“you owe it to others to get the vaccine yourself”) reflect not the morality of personal responsibility, arising from our Judeo-Christian foundations, but the immoral bullying of a quasi-religious cult.
Philip is medically trained, but no expertise is required to speak up for children and young people in this way.
Let us not forget:
I am reminded of this banner at one of the many 2021 protests around the world that were largely ignored by the mainstream media:
[August 2024 update: The results reported in this recent study in The Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal make for grim reading. Here’s a summary from an independent science writer:
More in this recent post.]
Helen then turns her attention to the harms done to children, noting that while some are already evident and well-documented, the extent of longer-term damage will only become clear with time.
The harms our society inflicted on children
Anxiety and harms to mental wellbeing
She contends that, given what was done to children, and over a period of several years:
…we cannot be surprised to find a resulting epidemic of anxiety, depression, insecurity and other problems in children. Children thrive and develop to their full potential in an environment which is secure, sociable, predictable and stimulating. Our society inflicted the exact opposite upon them.
Teenagers… experienced an exacerbation of existing problems and an explosion of entirely new crises. Emergency referrals for crisis care increased by 62% compared to 2020, and in 2021 a staggering one million referrals of children were made for specialist mental health services.7
She cites Rod Grant, one of just a handful of school leaders to speak out unambiguously about school closures, during the height of the 2021 nationwide shutdown:
In the last three months, in my school and schools like it, I am witnessing mental health issues unlike anything I’ve seen in my career. This is not me trying to be dramatic or to overplay what lockdown actually does to children. I am seeing children being diagnosed with clinical depression, increasing rates of self-harm … suicidal ideation and, something I haven’t seen for at least 20 years, a resurgence of eating disorders … Children need to be with their friends. They need to play. They need to develop their social and academic skills. How dare we have created an environment where a five-year-old can say, “I can’t play with Freddie because he’s not part of my bubble.” It is the stuff of nonsense and it is our children who will end up being this lockdown’s collateral damage.8
And then addresses some of the longer-term effects of covid measures.
Loss of education
She points out that:
Months… of disrupted, sporadic or completely absent education will have serious consequences, and particularly for those children who were already vulnerable. The gaps in education, the missing building blocks, the negative effects on confidence, development, social skills, ambition, work ethic — all of these will affect the life chances of a whole generation of children, and only time will tell just how serious that will be.
And cites this haunting statement from UNICEF, timed to coincide with International Education Day on 24 January 2022:
“In March [2022], we will mark two years of… disruptions to global education. Quite simply, we are looking at a nearly insurmountable scale of loss to children’s schooling”.9
In financial terms, according to this article:
In September 2020, the OECD published a research-based assessment showing that the loss of three months of schooling due to the closure of schools in times of crisis is equivalent to the loss of about 2.5-4% of the child’s total future income for the rest of their life.
Alas it appears that the page at that “rest of their life” link “no longer exists”…
Loss of socialisation
She points out that long-term effects also apply to pre-school children:
Isolating children… [and] masking the faces they see… will have negative consequences not only for school-aged children but also for pre-school children in the critical years of development.
And recalls an email in 2020 from a clinical psychologist deeply concerned about the effect of covid interventions, especially on children:
You cannot enforce social distancing in a fundamentally social species without serious negative consequences.10
If only more psychologists had spoken out in 2020/2021. If only more psychologists would speak out now! I am particularly grateful to the likes of Gary Sidley and Patrick Fagan. The exploitation of behavioural psychology — explored in this recent post — was a particularly important part of what happened during the covid era.
Helen also points to what she describes as physical consequences, citing the president of the British Paediatric Neurology Association who has spoken of an ‘explosion’ of children with lockdown-induced disabling tics… and Tourette’s syndrome. And studies that show permanent eye damage in children due to increased screen time during the pandemic.11
She cites an April 2022 Ofsted report into early years children that stated:
The pandemic has continued to affect children’s communication and language development, and many providers noticed delays in their speech and language progress. The negative impact on children’s personal, social and emotional development has also continued, with many children lacking confidence in group activities”.12
Loss of milestones and rites of passage
She also laments the irreplaceable losses of milestones and rites of passage (which was perhaps the thing that struck me most in the short film Numb I mentioned earlier):
…birthdays, starting toddler group or pre-school, starting school, leaving school, sitting exams, getting exam results, prom celebrations, graduation ceremonies, school trips…
Noting that:
…these are all significant points in children’s lives which cannot be replayed; once lost they are gone forever.
She echoes the experience of the authors of The Children’s Inquiry, Liz Cole and Molly Kingsley, who wrote this about their own children in 2022:
We have spent two years watching as four happy children by turns became sad, angry, demotivated, confused, had rites of passage and life opportunities taken away from them and friendships curtailed. We are very conscious that each of those four children was one of the lucky ones: we have been horrified and humbled by some of the testimonies we’ve heard and read.13
Abuse and neglect
Helen expresses particular concern for the most vulnerable children in our society…
…[they] were abandoned; dropped in an instant. For many of these children school is the only secure and reliable thing in their life, and it was removed overnight. In many cases, contact with the professionals who were meant to look out for the welfare of these children also disappeared.
And points out, quoting from The Children’s Inquiry (p13):
Schools are more than educational settings; they are wellbeing hubs and, for the most vulnerable, a sanctuary. We feared from the outset that loss of schooling would lead irrevocably to a safeguarding catastrophe, and so it proved. Despite the assurances that schools would welcome vulnerable children during the first lockdown, 94% did not attend. This absence was no mere blip; it was a trend, and we now know that close to 100,000 children never returned fully to school after closures.
We can only begin to guess at what the long-term consequences might be.
Some of the shorter-term consequence have already been devastating. Helen recollects hearing a health professional warning in Spring 2020 that the incidence of child abuse would rocket. And notes that:
…within weeks of the first lockdown, Great Ormond Street Hospital [in London] reported a 1,493% rise in cases of abusive head trauma.14
I looked up that BMJ editorial and found a link to the source article, which was first published in July 2020 but apparently not published online until 2022:
The article, entitled Rise in the incidence of abusive head trauma during the COVID-19 pandemic, states that:
Prior to presentation, 50% of patients were colic, 40% were apnoeic with decreasing consciousness, and 20% had seizures. Clinical examination revealed retinal haemorrhages (50%), extensive bruising (50%), scalp swelling (50%), and excoriation marks (10%). Radiological findings included subdural haemorrhage (60%), cerebral oedema (40%), parenchymal contusion (40%), skull fractures (40%), subarachnoid haemorrhage (30%), and extracranial fractures (30%).
And that:
All families live in areas with a higher than average Index of Multiple Deprivation…
The increase in incidence seen at [Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children] reflects a rise in domestic abuse in countries enforcing similar social distancing measures. This sobering figure is likely under-represented due to public avoidance of hospitals at this time… two parents in our cohort cited fears of contracting [covid] as a reason for delayed presentation.
…Our cohort is aligned to the literature in its portrayal of socioeconomic deprivation and parental vulnerability as significant risk factors for abuse, both of which may be exacerbated as a result of the stresses imposed by quarantine measures. The child’s increased exposure to their parents and decreased interaction with reporting bodies further heightens this risk.
…in the background of the intensely public SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a more silent pandemic is occurring, of which the medical community must remain astutely aware.
Babies and children. In Britain. Just four years ago. Their head injuries are among the many catastrophic consequences of “covid restrictions” enacted by the authorities “for our safety”.
The warning of that “silent pandemic” of child abuse came from a children’s hospital that is literally an 11-minute taxi ride from Westminster:
It was published in the BMJ in mid-2020. And yet our Government — egged on by the “Opposition” among others — went on to enact more of the same policies that had led to that increase in harms to babies and children.
Care and support
Helen also tells of how children with disabilities, child carers (who have a caring role, often for a parent) and children in residential care were affected in multiple ways, citing how:
Family members were prevented from visiting and providing care and support for children in residential care. In many cases support, respite and contact with health professionals was removed overnight.
And highlighting the example of Sara, an eight-year-old child:
She has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and complex needs that require input from a range of therapists and healthcare workers. She has severe learning difficulties and is behind academically… Sara’s father says, “My daughter did not see a physiotherapist, a paediatric consultant, an epilepsy consultant, an occupational therapist, an orthopaedic surgeon, an optician or a GP for the best part of two years. She was denied the right to attend school for almost an entire year. She was deprived of the health benefits and pure joy normally afforded by her weekly sessions of hydrotherapy and riding for the disabled. Her mobility declined. Her mental health suffered terribly. Her seizures got to the point where they lasted so long that she was turning blue and choking. We have almost lost her several times”.15
Masks
Helen then highlights the harms caused by masks, which many children were forced to wear, sometimes for large chunks of the day, despite potential harms and lack of evidence for any benefits.
Lest we forget, here is a reminder:
She points out that the World Health Organisation (WHO) defines child maltreatment as:
…all types of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment… and… exploitation, which results in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power.16
And quotes the authors of The Children’s Inquiry who state:
It is our view that society’s masking of children in circumstances where there is little evidence base for the measure, plenty of evidence of harm… comes uncomfortably close to meeting this definition.17
Quite.
This image — Face It — from Bob Moran is hard-hitting but apposite:
But you won’t see that sort of poster — or, I suspect, any poster warning of the harms of “covid policies” to children — in any school. (Or hospital. Or church.)
As Helen points out:
Not only were children harmed by the wearing of masks themselves (for example: headaches, nausea, infections, stress, anxiety, breathing difficulties), but even little children were surrounded by masked faces. I remember picking up my children from primary school and parents were expected to wear masks, outside. So little children came out of school to a sea of expressionless masked faces, as if the adults needed protecting from them.
I refused to do such a thing, and made a big effort to smile at all the children!
I recall the time well. In February 2021 I wrote to the principal of our local secondary school:
(Live links here: UNESCO Declaration Article 6; the histogram)
I also wrote to explain my rationale.18
And, perhaps partly due to what I wrote, the school’s letter home regarding the planned re-opening did say that parents could with withdraw consent, and that pupils who did not wear masks and did not test regularly would be treated no differently from those who did.
But let it suffice to say here that I have received no thanks for doing what I did. And I suspect that there were many schools where there were no parents raising credible objections to what was being done to our children.
Vaccines
On the subject of the harms of covid vaccines, Helen stays fairly brief. She notes that:
…the list of recorded side-effects resulting from these experimental medications19 is too long to include here, but you can get an idea from the government’s yellow card reporting system.
You can indeed. See for example this article from Prof Norman Fenton, statistics expert and Professor of Risk and Information Management at Queen Mary University of London.
She continues, noting that:
A particular risk was identified for boys and young men from myocarditis20 (damage to the heart muscle).
Which reminds me of what US cardiologist Peter McCullough said in the context of the sudden and tragic wedding-night death of 37-year-old country singer Jake Flint:
Based on what we know, unless there’s some other cause of death, the working diagnosis is that it’s subclinical vaccine-induced myocarditis
Helen asks:
How many children (including those in the womb) and young people have been harmed by these experimental medications?
It continues to amaze me that more people do not see how egregiously unethical it is to inject children and pregnant women with that have no long term data on safety or fertility.
This would still be the case even if the so-called vaccines were safe and effective (for which there has never been any robust evidence). And even if covid presented a serious risk to their health (which it doesn’t).
Alas, it appears that too many people — many of whom should really know better — have rather short memories…
Despite — for viewers of Gardeners’ World — a fairly regular (and welcome) reminder:
It will be a long time before we know anything like the full extent of the harms of the covid injections, but early indications are not encouraging.
As noted in this post, even simple Google Scholar searches gives an indication of the extraordinary extent of covid vaccine harms. Some of the most compelling evidence can be found in data such as that presented here. And such figures are consistent with the many personal stories such as that of Maddie de Garay as featured in this recent post.
Accountability
Helen then raises the issue of who should be held accountable for what has been done to children.
She points out that:
Most people did not speak out in defence of children, and those who did [during the covid era] were silenced, vilified and punished.
And contends that:
There are a number of groups in society who should have spoken out and who, in the main, failed to do so.
Churches
She notes that:
Almost all of the main church denominations in [the UK] followed government ‘rules’ and guidelines seemingly gladly, and some even [going] beyond what was asked of them.
Quite. I cited some examples here.
Helen also points out that:
Church organisations provided ‘vaccination centres’ in their buildings to encourage people to receive the jabs.
Which reminds me of Bob Moran’s False Idol cartoon which encapsulates so much, and will — I suspect — one day be used by preachers to illustrate aspects of the nature of idolatry:
And she reminds us that:
…coercive and misleading messaging was promoted through the ‘Your Neighbour’ initiative (which we covered in the very first episode of the Owl and Badger podcast).
“Spreading the good news of the vaccine” is surely a strong contender for the title of Phrase that has aged least well.
The “Your Neighbour” initiative is also featured in this recent post — currently the most read article on this Substack:
More broadly, Helen contends that:
Most church leaders, with notable exceptions, failed to speak into and challenge the fear narrative and failed to question what was going on. Considering that very few church leaders are willing to address the issue of abortion which results in the deaths of many, many thousands of babies every year in this country, perhaps we should not be surprised that so few spoke out against the measures which caused so much harm to children. It is shameful, and the church must repent of its cowardice and reflect carefully and prayerfully on what happened so it can learn lessons for the future.
Helen’s call for the church to repent of its cowardice (cf. Revelation 21:8) reminds me of what I wrote in November 2022 to the leaders of the church I attend — particularly in relation to children. But I have still had no constructive engagement from them regarding the issues raised in that letter, despite re-sending it.
I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:15:
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.
Such lack of engagement does not bode well for our children, particularly if Helen is correct in saying that “even greater challenges are sure to come”.
Teachers
Re teachers, she recalls that:
With a few notable exceptions, most teachers and headteachers went along with government ‘guidelines’ and the powerful lobbying of the teaching unions.
And points out that:
Many of the measures imposed on children could have been fought under the banner of ‘safeguarding’ and duty of care for the wellbeing and education of children [but] instead of putting children first, the unions peddled a fear narrative that painted children as disease spreaders and a risk to adults, which could not have been further from the truth.
I too have been struck by the fact that we have heard so little from those entrusted with safeguarding responsibilities for children and young adults — both in schools and in other contexts.
She adds:
If I had my way, every teacher and teacher’s union worker would be required to read The Children’s Inquiry as part of their professional development.
And cites this extract (p126):
…the government elected to close schools for a second time in January 2021. Having full knowledge of the [lack of] harms at this stage, the decision surely represented the nadir of pandemic decision-making. And here, in our view, linking events to union influence is a far simpler matter… on 3 January 2021 the NEU [National Education Union] wrote to its members saying that “it would, in our view, be unsafe for you to attend the workplace in schools and colleges which were open to all students.” The following day, Boris Johnson announced a third national lockdown that included school closures.
The announcement of the 2021 lockdown came around the time of some of the events related to “Partygate”. But in my view there is a strong case to be made that the rule-making by politicians was far worse than any rule-breaking. Not least because the rule-breaking tells us that they knew that the risk from covid was being exaggerated.
This retired government statistician cannot actually spot the “pandemic of 2020” in his analysis of the raw data:
Here is an example21 to illustrate the point:
The nine bars below represent the ONS age-standardised mortality rates for the following years: 1990, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2015, 2019 and 2020.
Which one represents 2020, the year of the “deadly pandemic”?
The answer is E.22
Despite the fact that there were extra deaths in 2020 due to:
restricted access to healthcare facilities
the use of midazolam in care homes
fewer prescriptions of antibiotics for those testing positive for covid
In accordance with NICE guideline NG163.23
In March 2020, the authorities knew that a lockdown would make little difference to the spread of an airborne respiratory virus, and they knew that it would harm children and young people (and society generally). But they went ahead anyway.
By the end of 2020, the damage to children and young people (and society generally) was evident for all to see, and the extent of the “threat from covid” plain from the ONS data. But our politicians went ahead with the 2021 lockdown anyway. With the approval of public health officials.
On this basis alone I find it curious — to say the least — that so many people still seem to think that the authorities have our best interests at heart.
Back on the subject of schools, Helen asks:
Is it unreasonable to expect teachers and those who work with children to put the welfare and wellbeing of children as a high priority?
And again quotes The Children’s Inquiry (p22):
That school had ceased to be a nurturing, perhaps even safe, environment for children, is a sentiment we heard expressed often. “I am growing increasingly concerned about my child’s welfare in school”, one parent writes. “I am beginning to feel that no-one in the school cares a damn about the children”, says another.
She points out that few school leaders spoke out publicly against what was done to children. Perhaps the most high-profile was Mike Fairclough, who paid a heavy price for his determination to do what he believed to be right and in the best interests of children.
A short version of his story — I, a Headteacher, Was Investigated by Counter-Terrorism Agencies — can be found here. In another article, published around the same time as the book below, he says:
As the only UK headteacher to publicly question lockdowns, masking kids and the covid vaccine rollout to children, I was not alone in my beliefs. Other headteachers privately told me that they agreed with my stance but that they worried that voicing their concerns would impact on their careers and relationships. This is despite every education professional having a legal as well as a moral duty to safeguard children against harm.
Doctors
On the subject of doctors, Helen notes that:
…very few doctors and medical professionals seemed willing to speak out in defence of children. Few questioned the ethics of inflicting medical interventions on children… testing, masking and covid vaccines. Doctors… should have advocated the (voluntary) protection of the vulnerable, whilst ensuring the rest of the population could continue to function and access regular healthcare… [as] advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration…
And points out that doctors were well-placed to question both the safety and efficacy of rushed novel-technology vaccines, and why early covid treatments were not being encouraged.
She recalls that:
A “stay home and do nothing until you are so sick you need hospital treatment” policy seemed to be in place, and most doctors seemed to go along with it.
And that when she wrote to her GP in the summer of 2021 to ask why the practice was pushing covid vaccines on her and her two children, the GP replied saying that:
…the vaccinations had been given to millions of people and the risk of significant side effects seemed very low indeed… [and that] the vaccination is very effective at almost entirely eliminating the risk of severe disease.
The same GP ended by saying he personally had no misgivings about his children receiving covid injections.
As Helen points out, these were extraordinary assertions for a doctor to make even at that time. She notes that the GP gave no evidence or figures or links to any published research to back up any of his claims. And she wonders whether her GP’s views had been formed mainly by watching the BBC.
She recalls a recent podcast in which she asked pathologist Dr Clare Craig why so many medics seem to have followed the narrative without question. The answer is sobering:
Their entire time in medicine has been a culture where there are guidelines and protocols and ways to do things and you really are just plugging people into algorithms. I think it is terribly sad that doctors can’t see how going down that path makes them redundant.
And she [Helen] also reminds us that there was even a financial incentive for doctors to vaccinate children:
NHS GPs were paid differing fees depending on whom they vaccinated, with almost double payments in August 2021 for injecting a child aged 12-15 years.24
I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that it will take decades to rebuild trust in the medical profession — insofar as trust can ever be regained. The Hope Accord (featured in this recent post, and with 30,000+ signatures to date) offers the most promising way forward that I have seen:
Parents
Helen goes on to recall how shocked she was at how most parents questioned so little of what they were being bombarded with, and what their children were having to endure…
I knew many parents who were routinely testing their children, masking them, enforcing social distancing and so on… Perhaps the most extreme and upsetting example I encountered was a Mum with two young children... one of her children [with learning difficulties] had ‘tested positive’ for covid. She separated him from the rest of the family in a room on his own, wouldn’t let him near anyone and kept him masked…
She recalls how politicians repeatedly stated that the covid injections were only for adults — and initially only for adults in the more ‘vulnerable’ groups — and then how the injections were offered to younger and younger people, and eventually children. She assumed that:
…no sensible parent would allow their child to take the injection, but soon realised that many parents were not even willing to question it… [but seemed to assume] that any injection offered to their child must be a good thing… despite a year or more of exposure to the virus which showed that healthy children were at virtually no risk from it.
She says that she knows of several teenage boys:
…with covid vaccine damage [in the short-term], including one case which has been medically confirmed as directly linked.
Professionals working with children
Helen notes that, aside from teachers and doctors, there are many other professionals whose job it is to work with and to be an advocate for children — such as social workers, children’s mental health teams, youth workers, health visitors, and representatives of children’s charities.
She asks:
Where were their voices when children were undergoing such harms? A few spoke out, but most seemed to keep quiet and just accept the almost total collapse of children’s support and advocacy services in every field.
And then goes on to give at least a partial answer to her question, noting that at least some of those who did speak out in defence of children were met with a barrage of abuse and accusations. She cites the experience of those behind UsForThem (a group campaigning for children to be prioritised during the covid response):25
From almost day one of launching… we’ve been targeted by unfounded accusations of misinformation… [being] anti-vaxxers, granny killers… [and] the animosity of these claims has often seemed to increase proportionately with the level of publicity the campaign has attracted. The perversity of being slurred, and labelled ‘extreme’, for maintaining positions that until 2020 would have been entirely consistent with previous pandemic planning, medical ethics and public health practice, grates and confuses.
Politicians
Lastly in this section, Helen turns her attention to politicians:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to expect much courage or moral fibre from our politicians, but their almost complete inability to question what happened during the covid era, and in particular in relation to the welfare of children, was still quite astonishing.
She notes that, as with other professions:
…the very few [politicians] who have spoken out against the ‘official’ positions have been met with ridicule, intense opposition and even sanctions.
And cites the example of former MP Andrew Bridgen.
She reminds us that politicians are elected to serve the people they represent, and that they should thus be held to account for decisions they make which they know will cause harm, especially when that is harm to children.
She cites part of a letter she wrote in Spring 2021 to the then PM Boris Johnson:
What are you trying to do to our children? Do you not care about the damage you are causing? Are you not listening to the children’s mental health workers who have been warning you for months? You are sacrificing the health, wellbeing, futures and even lives of children for some notion of ‘protecting’ adults. That is morally indefensible. Perhaps this (school closures) is just about placating the teaching unions? Shame on you. There are children up and down this land who are in misery, who have lost hope, who see no point in life, who are self-harming, who wish they were not alive, and the tragedy is we will lose some to suicide. This is not inevitable! You need to stop now. Stop the testing, stop the masks, stop the restrictions, let children go to school, learn and be children again. I will never bow to your obsession to beat a virus at all costs. It will not work. In the name of ‘protecting the NHS and saving lives’ you are wreaking harm and destruction on a monstrous scale.
But I doubt things would have been better under a government led by Sir Keir Starmer of the Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission, who, when invited by Emily Maitlis to choose between Davos or Westminster, unequivocally chose Davos.
Lest we forget…
In relation to lockdowns…
Here is Starmer in October 2020 and January 2021:
For the record, according to government data,26 covid “cases” peaked around New Year, i.e. before a further lockdown was announced in early 2021.
Even during Summer 2021, when “Freedom Day” was approaching, Starmer was pushing back against the lifting of restrictions.
In relation to covid vaccination…
Here is Starmer speaking in the first week of 2021:
We have to deal with the anti-vax campaigns, because they will cost lives. And if we need to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I’ll be quite prepared to work with the government on that... And the sooner we do that, frankly, the better. We need as many people vaccinated as possible…
And here he is in early 2022:
…we should have vaccinated more children… one of the things we said to the Prime Minister before Christmas was: “Use the Christmas break to open some schools to vaccinate the rest of those children”
Even though covid vaccine harms had been known to the authorities — and those looking beyond the mainstream media — since early 2021. Merely as a concerned citizen paying attention to doctors with the courage enough to speak out, I was aware enough in 2021 to write this in May and to put together these questions (Q9-13) in October.
Bob Moran nails it:
And for the record, I reiterate in this context what I wrote in the context of church leaders pushing covid vaccines:
Is it not highly questionable — to say the least — for any public figure ever to promote any medical product? However “safe” and/or “effective” it is claimed to be.
Especially where children are concerned.
And in the context of covid injections we might reasonably add:
Let alone a medical product that uses novel technology… and which plainly cannot have undergone long-term safety studies… and for a disease with an infection fatality rate comparable to a bad flu…
Returning to Helen’s article, she notes that the Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield repeatedly warned the government of the dangers of covid policy decisions to the interests of children, but was apparently ignored. Politicians thus cannot claim they did not know what would happen and the harm that would result from their decisions.
She ends the section on accountability by quoting Dr Clare Craig’s epic Expired: Covid the untold story, which gives the most impressive and comprehensive account of the covid era that I have encountered:
Harmful errors were not corrected because those responsible deliberately destroyed the fundamental error correction systems that are necessary in democratic society. Free speech, a free press, the right to protest, parliamentary debate, and cabinet collective responsibility are not just nice to have. They are all fundamental to a functioning democratic society and need defending and strengthening.
Of course every leader is responsible for their actions but those who deliberately break these mechanisms of error correction were choosing a path where harm would be more likely to result. Therefore they cannot defend themselves by saying they “did not know”. They must therefore take full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Lessons to learn
Helen acknowledges that:
…more than four years on from the first covid lockdown, some may say that it is time to put it all behind us and move on.
But, as she rightly points out:
When wrong is done, when harm is caused, and when ethical lines are crossed, there needs to be consequences and there needs to be lessons learned in the hope that such failings will not be repeated in the future.
Especially where children are concerned.
She goes on to point out that it was not simply a case of “mistakes made”, a point discussed in this recent post.
Helen contends:
This sorry story must be heard and these horrors inflicted on children must not be allowed to happen again. Those responsible must be held to account, and every effort should be made to repair the damage done.
She quotes psychologist Prof Ellen Townsend:
It is hard to take in what we have allowed to happen to children in this crisis. We adults should hang our heads in shame … We must never let the vile ‘inversion of nature’ of the past two years happen to children again.
And argues that:
As a society we failed our children terribly. We sacrificed their wellbeing in the (false) hope of protecting ourselves, the adult population. This goes against the fundamental instinct and ethical wiring of humanity: to protect children.
Prof Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University says something similar:
At the end of the day, what is manifest in the treatment of children I found hard to square with any kind of principle of the wellbeing, the welfare of society. It’s revealed something very dark… There are lots of things you can do to adults, but I really didn’t think we could do this for young people or that anyone would be up for that. I just didn’t think it was possible.
Helen laments how, during the covid era, she encountered multiple older people who, because of the relentless media fear-mongering, had come to view children as a ‘risk’ to them, like rats who carry disease. She recalls how:
…gossip spread about the latest school to have an ‘outbreak’, when in fact all that was happening was that children were being continually tested and then groups sent home as soon as a ‘positive’ test arose.
And how she knew people who made an active effort to avoid children, even walking across the road to keep away from them.
She notes that:
Words such as ‘vector’, ‘threat’, ‘dirty’, ‘selfish’, and ‘super spreaders’ [were used of children].
And points out, quoting The Children’s Inquiry (p150), that:
Our language matters, and the process of dehumanising begins with the words we use. At too many points during the pandemic, the language used to describe children and young people has framed them as a danger rather than as vulnerable members of society to be cherished, nurtured and championed.
She reminds us that:
Lockdowns and covid measures took so much of such critical importance away from children. Time cannot be rewound for them.
And quotes these words of Neil Oliver who has been one of the most consistent and outspoken voices against the covid tyranny:
What is lost or denied at the beginning of a life is not necessarily obtained or regained later… That an Ofsted report should find such basic life experience knowingly denied to millions of our youngest is appalling, unforgivable and shaming. This is nothing less than neglect. Wholesale neglect by society of the most precious and vulnerable resource we have. All of it was avoidable and should have been avoided.
As Helen points out:
It is a high calling and responsibility, given by God, to raise, nurture and care for children.
At the end of her article, she returns to the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 cited at the beginning of her post, where he rebukes those who tried to prevent children coming to him.
And she notes how Jesus responded in the previous chapter of Matthew’s gospel when his followers asked him, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”:
He called a little child to him, and placed the child among [his disciples]. And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. ‘If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung round their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
She concludes on a spiritual note:
As a society we did cruel and unethical things to our children, causing great harm, and all in the name of ‘science’, to ‘protect’ adults and for a notion of ‘the greater good’. In my view these were acts of devotion to false gods [presumably not least “the Science”], and nothing more than pagan idolatry and hubris. Those most responsible must be held to account, and we must collectively ensure that such things are never done again.
And warns:
History shows us that humans are slow to learn lessons from the past, and we easily repeat the same errors of judgement. There will be a next time, and each of us must be ready and willing to make a stand, to speak out, and protect our children. No matter the cost.
Some further thoughts
The contrasts in society
One of the things I particularly remember from the covid era is someone at church saying to me that they were having (or perhaps had had) “a good lockdown”.
I remember thinking of the contrasts in society:
the “haves” — people living in three- or four-bedroom houses with a private garden, a decent internet connection, and multiple modern computers and tablets
the “have nots” — people living in cramped flats with no outdoor space of their own, a relatively poor internet connection, and little by way of modern communication devices
And, towards at the extremes:
the “haves” in good health, with grown-up children no longer living at home, and on furlough from a secure well-paid job
the “have nots” in relatively poor health (including mental health), with responsibility for caring for young children, and struggling to earn enough money make ends meet
I suspect such contrasts in society have not been felt so strongly for a very long time. Especially by children. I am reminded of a phrase in the article (discussed earlier) about the massive rise in cases of abusive head trauma in Spring 2020: “All families live in areas with a higher than average Index of Multiple Deprivation”.
At least part of the problem in 2020 was that many of those who were implementing covid policies — church leaders, headteachers, doctors… and politicians (to use Helen’s examples in order)27 — were very much in the “haves” group. Living in areas with a (much) lower than average Index of Multiple Deprivation. And I did not notice much concern from them for the “have nots”.
Moreover, I sensed motives other than protecting people from whatever respiratory viruses were circulating in 2020/2021. I do not doubt that good intentions played a part, but I also detected — not least by examining my own heart — elements of virtue signalling and posterior covering.
But in any case, I cannot recall many people speaking up for the “have nots”, and particularly for the children and young people in that category. Or indeed children and young people generally. And few have spoken up since. Even as the evidence has mounted for the harm done.
Maybe when church leaders — and perhaps others — eventually make a statement something like this…
…they might include a section specifically addressed to children and young people?
“The next pandemic”
I have written previously about why we cannot merely put the covid era behind us and move on. There are multiple reasons — including those eloquently expressed by Helen — why people must be held accountable and lessons learned.
But perhaps the main reason why we should not “put the covid era behind us and move on” is that those who profited (in many cases literally) from covid are already preparing the ground for even more draconian policies in the future.
As I pointed out in the same article, the authorities, having learned from what happened during the covid era, are making no secret of the fact that they are preparing in earnest for “the next pandemic”.
This has perhaps been most evident in the World Health Organisation pandemic proposals. But there are plenty of other indicators, not least the building of factories that can produce massive numbers of mRNA vaccines.
Particularly in Germany:
But also in the UK, with this announcement made under the Sunak28 government:
Why is this happening?
The authorities are surely aware that most people — including NHS frontline healthcare workers — no longer seem to want unsafe and defective mRNA injections. And that many people are pushing back against what Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has called the new religion of mRNA.
And yet they continue to push mRNA vaccines. Including on children.
Have we any reason to think that what Helen describes as “destructive and evil forces at play” have gone away? Especially when there is so much money to be made from testing and PPE and vaccines.
Here is a recent post from Prof Jay Bhattacharya:
How long will it be before the declaration of another “public health emergency” — for which the bar is now set low.29 “Disease X”? “Bird flu”? The purported escape (or deliberate release) of a “gain of function” virus? Perhaps during a conflict with Russia?
Why should we think that “being prepared for the next pandemic” is anything other than code for being ready to lock down the population with a view to injecting people with more mRNA “vaccines” with minimal testing and no long-term safety data?
Does anyone seriously think that the authorities — egged on by those with vested interests in the vast “pandemic preparedness” industry — would not repeat something like the measures of the covid era if they could get away with it?
In the run-up to the recent UK General Election there was strikingly little discussion of covid lockdowns or vaccines. And it appears that even the supposedly “anti-establishment” Nigel Farage30 might not oppose another lockdown:
As with the lack of discussion of covid vaccines in the General Election campaigns — which is surely indicative in itself — we should pay attention here to what is not being said.
But in any case, how different is saying that “the second and third lockdowns were bad, but the first was defensible” from saying that “the second and third bouts of child abuse were bad, but the first was defensible”? Especially given that we now have confirmation of how harmful — and ineffective — lockdowns are:
Moreover, since the General Election — in which Labour won a “landslide”31 with a vote share of 34% — the new Prime Minister has appointed Patrick Vallance as Minister for Science.
That’s right, this Patrick Vallance…
…the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser who was instrumental in the UK’s disastrous covid response which:
switched abruptly in mid-March 2020 from long-established public health protocols to an unprecedented totalitarian lockdown-until-vaccine plan
Here he is in 2020 being grilled by MPs over the implausible modelling predictions of 4,000 covid deaths a day:
And only a few weeks ago, Vallance was reported as having said that:
another pandemic is “absolutely inevitable”… and [that] “we need to be much faster, much more aligned… at getting rapid diagnostic tests, rapid vaccines, rapid treatments…”
The importance of speaking up for children *now*
Even if our authorities were being open and honest about what has happened during the covid era, and even if we had a government committed not to repeat the folly of lockdown and the unethical pushing of rushed and dangerous vaccines, the moral case for speaking up for children and for acknowledging what has gone wrong would be overwhelming.
But the way the wind is blowing suggests an additional and urgent need to speak up for children in the context of potential future developments that might only be a matter of months away.
Some people are in positions of authority where they have more influence than most. I am thinking particularly of church leaders, headteachers, doctors and politicians (to cite Helen’s examples again).
But no authority — and no expertise — is required is to speak up for children.
And it doesn’t actually take much courage, does it?
One day our children — and our grandchildren — will be adults. One day they will have much more of a voice. And…
Helen is speaking out, along with UsForThem and a relatively small number of others. But we need many more.
Any takers?
This three-minute video seems a fitting way to end this post, as much for the pictures as for the words and music:
Dear Church Leaders homepage (or via Substack, or e.g. DuckDuckGo, but not Google for some reason)
The Big Reveal — Christianity carefully considered (which can also be found via Substack, or e.g. DuckDuckGo, but not Google)
In contrast to the UK covid inquiry, the Scottish covid inquiry has been doing a much better job of getting to the bottom of what actually happened
The Children’s Inquiry, p212
The Children’s Inquiry, p21
The Children’s Inquiry, p169
Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation
A claim for which the BBC quickly but quietly issued a low-key retraction without mentioning Sridhar by name
The Children’s Inquiry, p14
The Children’s Inquiry, p78
The Children’s Inquiry, p63
The Children’s Inquiry, p15
The Children’s Inquiry, p70
The Children’s Inquiry, p80
The Children’s Inquiry, p167
The Children’s Inquiry, p24
The Children’s Inquiry, p93
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment
The Children’s Inquiry, p61
This is what I wrote in February 2021 to explain my rationale:
In 2021 and 2022 the covid injections were still in clinical trials, with no long-term safety data by definition
If you doubt this, try e.g. a Google Scholar search for “covid vaccine myocarditis” as discussed here
From Expired: Covid the untold story by Dr Clare Craig
The NG163 document COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing symptoms (including at the end of life) in the community is no longer on the NICE website, but an archived version is available here and a pdf version here (c/o this related article)
Dr Rosamond Jones, Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (statement for The People’s Vaccine Inquiry)
The Children’s Inquiry, p147
See e.g. p6 of this edition of the UK government’s Weekly national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report, snapshot below:
Others could be added to this list: police officers, the Civil Service, university staff, officials in local government, directors and managers in private companies etc.
Rishi Sunak, a co-founder of hedge fund Theleme, which is heavily invested in Moderna, has refused to reveal if he stands to profit from Moderna’s mRNA vaccines
See p25-26 of this 2009 document
Farage said relatively little during the covid era, but did call for Tony Blair to be put in charge of the covid vaccine rollout; as to Reform UK, I am reminded of the notion that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves” (attributed to Lenin) which is consistent with e.g. this recent article
The number of Labour votes in 2024 was lower than when the party lost under Jeremy Corbyn in 2019