Stanford begins testing Pfizer vaccine in babies and young children

Please read the linked article from The San Jose Mercury News, April 15, 2021, by Lisa Krieger. Then read the letter (shared below) which is written to the reporter, and asks critical questions about these vaccine trials.

Testing Covid vaccines in babies and children

Shared from Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University:

“Joseph Billings wrote this excellent letter to Lisa M. Krieger, the Mercury News reporter who churned out that propaganda puff-piece about Stanford's experimental mRNA "vaccination" of babies and young children. There should be many more such letters sent to more such "journalists," and they too should be widely shared.”

Dear Lisa,

I have a few questions concerning your April 15th article describing Stanford University's recent Pfizer mRNA injection experiments on children.

Isn't there compelling research demonstrating that children very rarely die from exposure to the virus, which the Pfizer mRNA injection is ostensibly aimed at attacking? And doesn't some of this research include the very studies which, according to your article, Dr. Maldonado now claims are somehow obsolete or in need of broader understanding? After reading your rather casual report of Dr. Maldonado's suddenly new opinions, I am inclined to ask, did you submit Dr. Maldonado's claims to any other experts (including medical ethics experts) before writing your article concerning Stanford's experiments? I ask because you certainly made no attempt at all in the article itself to explore the details of any study that Dr. Maldonado might be relying upon to justify the Stanford experiments or, worse, to explore the ethics of conducting medical experiments on children for any reason. I would have thought that the obvious moral implications of conducting medical experiments on children would have alone caused you to take a very hard look at Dr. Maldonado's opinions.

Also, I would be grateful if you would explain how you justify referring so cynically and euphemistically to the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our human community (children) as "the littlest volunteers." In what sense do you claim, for example, that the apparently frightened, masked young boy in the disturbing photograph linked with your article is a volunteer? For the moment, I am inclined to think that you have actually revealed a case that calls for independent child advocate counsel to be appointed for young Andel Good and any other child who finds himself targeted for medical experimentation. It's a little chilling to me that you can so thoughtlessly refer to a three-year-old child as a "volunteer" for a medical experiment. Should we hire clowns to recruit such volunteers? Indeed, it appears from the article-related photograph that someone found it helpful for some reason to dance a stuffed animal before the child.

I never would have thought in several lifetimes that I would see the day that we would need to explain the Nuremberg Code to American doctors and journalists --especially in defense of children. Surely you are at least aware that a range of crimes in every state of the union is based upon the principle that children are incapable of consenting to acts (even with parental approval) that we otherwise leave to the discretion of adults in light of the possible serious consequences of the act. And even in the case of adults, an act will not be judged "voluntary" unless consent is based upon accurate and adequate information (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). Based upon your research into your article, do you think that three-year-old Andel had this truth at his disposal, studied the risks of the mRNA experiment, and then offered his informed "consent"? Do you have solid grounds (evidence) to believe that even his parents had such information?

What exactly was the aim of your April 15th piece? Because it lacks the rudiments of responsible journalism (e.g. juxtaposition of divergent expert opinions), I hardly know how to categorize it. Certainly, consultation with the Children's Health Defense, for example, would have improved the balance of your article immeasurably. But frankly, I worry that you intended propaganda rather than responsible journalism.

I would be grateful if you would share with me any peer reviewed research that you might have studied before you repeated Dr. Maldonado's claims in support of Stanford's child experiments. Did you make any effort at all to critically evaluate those claims? If you consulted other experts concerning Dr. Maldonado's opinions and justification for conducting mRNA injection experiments on children before you wrote your article (an elementary rule in responsible journalism), would you be good enough to share with me the names of the experts whom you consulted? I would like to know who they were, what you asked them, and what they told you. And I would like to see that as a responsible journalist you obtained and evaluated any evidence in support of what you were told.

I worry that you have written a piece of highly irresponsible journalism (maybe even reckless and shameful propaganda), but I would like to get the facts clear before I reach any conclusions.

Regards,

Joseph Billings