America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has filed a motion in federal court 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,” the group announced in a statement this weekend.
Life Site News reports 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.
“There 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,” stated attorney Lowell H. Becraft, Jr. “Children are inherently incapable of providing informed consent. Neither the children, nor their parents, can possibly give informed consent to these vaccines, since the DHHS Secretary has failed to make the even the minimum statutory disclosures regarding risks and alternative treatments.”
According to concerned doctors with the group, the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccine far outweigh any benefits of protecting children from a virus that causes minimal, if any, symptoms.
“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.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The latest side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine, it seems, is myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, which has been reported in teens and young adults within days of receiving a second dose of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
“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.”
In addition to AFLDS, plaintiffs on the motion include individual doctors and parents of minor children.
“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.
Because of the minimal risks for children of dying of COVID-19, the plaintiffs contend the defendants will be unable to make “science-based” arguments that assert “preserving the status quo will create any hardship for them or for the public.” After all, the survivability rate for COVID-19 for individuals under the age of 20 is 99.997 percent, according to statistics cited by the plaintiffs.
The motion 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.” But, “[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.”
Meanwhile, the risks associated with the vaccine have been well-documented since their rollout. The plaintiffs note there have been more than 4,000 deaths tied to the COVID-19 vaccines in the last four months, far surpassing the 1,500 total in the previous 10 years for all vaccines.
Likewise, researchers have voiced concerns that spike proteins from the vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier and can potentially increase autoimmune disorders, which are far more harmful than COVID-19 for young people.
In addition to fighting against the use of vaccines for minor children, the plaintiffs also strongly discourage the vaccines for healthy populations between the ages of 20 and 69, the motion reads.
Sadly, the government’s COVID agenda has prompted decision-makers at all levels, as well as much of the medical community and average citizens, to look the other way when it comes to the dangers of the COVID vaccines. Typically, the plaintiffs note, experimental vaccine rollout is paused by the government when there are 25 unexplained deaths associated with the shot. Yet 4,000 deaths have failed to prompt any action.
The plaintiffs contend their motion includes arguments that will make clear to the court that the EUAs should never have been granted and should be immediately revoked, and that the injections are more dangerous than the virus itself. The motion also asserts that numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting the EUAs and the efforts to push the vaccines out. The motion includes assurances that the plaintiffs will be bringing suit “in the near future” against the EUAs.
“We all would like to put COVID-19 behind us, but we must be responsible about it as physicians, parents and as a nation. People are being misled here and we need to ensure that we don’t rob our children of their future because of a rush to administer a vaccine that has not been fully tested and approved,” stated Dr. Teryn Clarke, executive communications director for America’s Frontline Doctors.
The group contends the best approach to COVID-19 should protect both physicians and citizens from government overreach, preserve Constitutional freedoms, and remove threats of “medical ‘cancel culture’ and media censorship.” More successful ways to stop the virus, according to the motion, include expanding COVID-19 treatment options for all Americans and providing over-the-counter COVID preventative and early treatment options to all Americans who need them. The group rejects mandatory government lockdowns and restrictions unsupported by science, instead asserting the best care focuses on the nation’s “at-risk” population.
