BIRMINGHAM, Alabama, May 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A group of parents, along with America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), filed a motion in federal court (written by Thomas Renz, Esq.) seeking a temporary restraining order “to prevent the expansion of the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines to include children under the age of 16,” according a statement released earlier today.
The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and is directed against Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It consists of numerous plaintiffs representing various interests and backgrounds, including “physicians and the parents of minor children who are alarmed about offering children experimental products that have not undergone long term animal or safety studies.”
“We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action,” stated Dr. Angelina Farella, AFLDS Pediatric Medical Director. “The Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects and the Swine Flu vaccine was pulled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still talking about giving this to our kids.”
“Our children should never be the experiment,” she continued. “No additional authorizations or mandates should be granted. We want to preserve the previously established safety standards.”
Dr. Farella also cited statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which confirms “children are at statistically zero risk for COVID-19, making expansion of the EUA for younger children medically unnecessary.”
The plaintiffs thus argue that “the defendants can make no science-based argument that preserving the status quo will create any hardship for them or for the public.”
As a matter of law, the petitioners contend that “the statistics alone make it impossible for the government to satisfy the balancing test required by federal statute (§ 360bbb–3(c)(2)(B)) as a condition to issuing EUAs for these experimental vaccines.”
As the motion itself reads, “EUA requires that an intervention address a serious or life- threatening condition, and for known and potential benefits of the intervention to be balanced against the known and potential harms.” Yet, the plaintiffs assert, “[t]here is not even a pretense of a factual basis that COVID-19 represents a serious or life-threatening condition for children under 16, since the CDC acknowledges they face 0% risk of mortality from COVID-19 statistically.”
Therefore, according to attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., “[t]here is no public interest in subjecting children to an inoculation program, in order to protect them from a disease that simply does not threaten them.” Further, “since the DHHS Secretary has failed to make even the minimum statutory disclosures regarding risks and alternative treatments,” informed consent is not even possible for parents, while children are inherently incapable of such consent.
Statistics included by the plaintiffs to support their arguments include the following:
Under the age of 20, the survivability rate for COVID-19 is 99.997 percent.
More than 4,000 deaths that have been tied to the administering of COVID-19 vaccines in the last four months, as opposed to 1,500 total in the previous ten years for all vaccines.
Prior experimental vaccine rollout was stopped by the government when there were 25 unexplained deaths (deemed too high).
Researchers are concerned that spike proteins from the vaccines cause disease even without the virus, cross the blood-brain barrier, and could increase auto-immune disorders.
“I’ve done my research and know that there is essentially zero percent risk for young people dying of COVID-19 and fiercely oppose the use of an untested product that has not been fully approved for use in healthy children,” said plaintiff Matt Schweder, a parent of minor children.
“I am very concerned about the way the EUAs have been handled and I don’t believe particularly young people should be pressured by the government to start taking a vaccine like this where there are so many unknowns,” he concluded.
The plaintiffs affirm in the motion that their arguments will make clear to the court, “based on the law and well-founded scientific evidence, that: the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and pushing these injections on the American people.”