Response to Dr Clare Craig on Pediatric Vaccination

Read Time:7 Minutes

We republish this response by an audience member at our March Conference to Dr Craig’s comments on addressing questions of pediatric vaccination safety in the medical freedom advocacy space, during the ‘Medical case Against the WEF’ panel. You can read the original blog here. We contacted Dr Clare Craig for a reply, which is included at the bottom of article.


I attended the conference ‘The Left Case Against the World Economic Forum’ on the 25th March in London. While I am not going to do an expansive write-up on the conference, I was drawn to respond to a comment made by Dr. Clare Craig in the Q&A portion of the panel regarding paediatric vaccines, as I have some quite significant issues with it.

The Context

Dr. Clare Craig gave a talk on the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare (I’m not going to address that topic, transcript here for those that have an interest). An audience member (not me) asked her a question in the Q&A panel regarding traditional vaccines, stating that he read ‘Dissolving Illusions’ and that vaccines don’t have the effectiveness record that is claimed. Craig’s response to this question was that, paraphrasing, she has deliberately not got into the debate around other vaccines because we need to win people over on the issue of the Covid ‘vaccines’ first. Unfortunately there is no transcript/video of the q & a session available, so I am using memory and my instinct of what was said at the time and what went through my mind, after she said this. I did make notes on the day and the day after of what points I wanted to make in response, so hopefully this should be accurate.

I have several issues with this statement which I will outline below.

Loyalty to Truth

The first issue I have with this is the idea of loyalty to truth. The implications of this comment seem to be that we should put the question of truth of paediatric vaccine effectiveness to one side in order to prioritise the strategy of winning people over to the dangers of the covid jab. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this is a good strategy for a moment. If someone genuinely believes that paediatric vaccines do more good than harm, that is an honest position, if false (many people honestly believe this because of the relentless vaccine propaganda, though of course their unwillingness to question that propaganda is open to criticism). But to state that we should stay away from the issue, even if we are willing to question the claims around traditional vaccines intellectually, seems to me a like a dishonest position.

Is This a Good Strategy?

I also question whether this will be an effective strategy to win people over. Firstly, to a large extent, the battle over the Covid ‘vaccine’ is won, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Why?

As of March 21, 2023, only 16.4% of Americans were current with their updated (bivalent) booster dose, CDC data shows.FOX

This number is very important. It demonstrates that even people who bought into the Covid scam and willingly got ‘vaccinated’ are not taking the bivalent boosters, and only a small hard core of Covid fanatics are still lining up for more doses. This is the same in lots of different countries, with doses administered flatlining in countries like Israel.

The question that logically follows is: why? If it is so ‘safe and effective’ why aren’t people still taking it? Again, these are the people who believed the CDC and trusted them on Covid, but when the CDC tells them to get the latest booster, they aren’t doing it. Because implicitly, even if they cannot admit it to themselves, they are subconsciously aware that this is a dangerous product. Of course, some are aware, having suffered consequences directly or indirectly from the ‘vaccine’ and have linked their and/or their family and friends’ misfortunes to the shot.

This makes it the perfect time to push back, strategically, and fight to destroy the vaccine cult as a whole. Millions of minds have been opened by the Covid jab debacle – and they would be willing to consider arguments about vaccination as a whole. There are already lots more parents stating they won’t vaccinate, or that they are considering not vaccinating, or they regret vaccinating. There’s also a smaller number of people who were injured by paediatric vaccinations who are speaking out but unfortunately this number remains very small for now (of course, those who were killed or severely injured by paediatric vaccinations cannot speak out). Now of course, if we do this they will smear us as ‘antivaxxer cranks’ or whatever, but the reality is, they are going to do that anyway. Even the mildest Covid ‘vaccine’ critics are called antivax by the establishment, so in this regard, it’s irrelevant whether we’re actually antivax or not in their eyes.

The only strategic reason to not push back against the whole vaccine paradigm at this point is because one wants to save it. Some people critical of the mRNAs fall into this category, like Alex Berenson. I don’t know whether Dr. Craig ultimately wants to save it or not, as she didn’t explicitly answer that question. But not addressing paediatric vaccine harms has that effect.

The Harm of Paediatric Vaccination Injuries

Dr. Craig did not say that paediatric vaccination injuries are not real, in fact she engaged with someone in the audience whose sister had been injured by the Smallpox vaccine. She also mentioned the Pandemrix vaccine which was famously pulled for causing narcolepsy. So to be clear I am not accusing her of stating that paediatric vaccination injury cannot happen. The question from the audience member was more framed around the issue of vaccine effectiveness (such as vaccination not deserving credit for wiping out diseases) and not vaccine injury (such as the vaccines cause autism debate). This was the sort of point the questioner was trying to make:

As such, I understand that Dr. Craig did not frame her answer in reference to paediatric vaccination injuries, but nevertheless, the topic cannot be avoided. If we assume that paediatric vaccination injuries, including severe injury and death, are real, than avoiding this topic helps to allow the injury to continue, regardless of intent. The reality of the autism epidemic is continuing to get worse, for example. As I said above, more than ever there are some people who are willing to listen on childhood vaccines (even if some will never listen). There might be parents who decide not to vaccinate their child with paediatric vaccines because they initially began questioning the mRNA/adenovirus vector products and saw people who spoke about about the mRNA/adenovirus vector also speaking out on childhood vaccines. This has the potential to save children from these horrific injuries.

I have tried to avoid an emotional response to the question also, but I do think we need to think through the implications from a perspective of someone who has childhood vaccine injuries. The strategic logic of only focusing on Covid ‘vaccination’ implies that people who have vaccination injuries from paediatric vaccines shouldn’t really be considered in the debate or that if we speak out we should be put to one side for strategic reasons. While this isn’t directly stated it is implied by the logic that we should focus only on the Covid ‘vaccines’.


I must fundamentally disagree with Dr. Clare Craig when she states that we should focus on getting the public on board with opposition to the covid ‘vaccine’ and avoid questions around the effectiveness of other vaccines. Instead I advocate opening up a debate around all vaccines, because, having come to come to the conclusion that the vaccine paradigm is entirely fraudulent that’s the only place I can be, on this topic.

Dr Clare Craig’s Reply

I am grateful to the author who raises some worthwhile points. I am all for free speech on every issue including childhood vaccination. There are many people who know more than I currently do to discuss this topic in depth. However, I would always advocate for trusting parent’s ability to access accurate and evidence based information on all childhood inoculations, as well as Covid vaccines. And as with all medical treatments, the medical ethic of informed consent must be upheld. I am however conscious that accepting a problem with the covid vaccines will be harder for people if they believe that they can only do so by becoming “anti-vax”. That was the point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly).

6 thoughts on “Response to Dr Clare Craig on Pediatric Vaccination

  1. Communicating with parents regarding vaccines requires skills of diplomacy as well as a wealth of medical research. It continues to be a challenge to keep the debate open and the discussion respectful. Since the 1990s, and the Andrew Wakefield case, it has been a minefield for anyone, wishing to challenge the traditional view that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing disease. It is so easy to be dismissed and shut down. With the Covid vaccines, it became an urgent mission to disaggregate this one from traditional childhood vaccines. When 90% of parents with children, age 5 to 11, refused the offer of a Covid vaccine for their child , we can consider that that disaggregation has been successful. It is only now that we can examine the themes associated with Covid vaccines and retrospectively ask parents to examine previously accepted medical “truths“. A successful campaign which examines such time honoured indisputable medical interventions needs to be politic , as well as honest and evidence based. Clare Craig’s approach has been entirely consistent with the SafertoWait campaign for children. We began with informed consent at the heart of this campaign for Covid vaccines and we are going on within an established mutually respectful and trusting relationship with those who use our resources to look and report upon other vaccines . This staged and sequential approach is the most sensible in my humble opinion of having been sceptical of pharmaceutical interventions for more than 30 years. You meet people where they are at and you ask them to step forward in small steps with you.

  2. The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative for the past 200 years is actually based on an assumption that all the vaccines are safe.
    There is actually no credible large-scale post-marketing study for any vaccine used in the US today that actually backs up this claim.
    It’s all based on faith in seriously flawed studies.
    There isn’t a credible post-marketing objective epidemiological study for any vaccine in the US. That’s right. Not a single one.
    The whole “vaccines are safe” narrative is built on belief and seriously flawed studies, and not on proper objective epidemiological studies which could have been easily done but were not.
    If we cannot prove safety at the level of <1 death per 10M doses in children, we should not be vaccinating more kids (or adults) until we have done the proper post-marketing safety study on the kids we’ve already vaccinated.
    The fact that no state is willing to do the study but is at the same time still recommending that kids (and adults) get vaccinated should be deeply troubling to everyone.
    It is a symptom of a seriously out-of-control medical community that cares more about following directives from the CDC than patient safety.
    The rationale for vaccinating kids (and adults) is nonsensical.
    The narrative that vaccines are safe is built on belief and/or flawed studies, not on data.
    Steve Kirsch
    Me: Death or Injuries and later death by vaccines are self proven, where is the medical proof that vaccines work, or they are just genocide on a major scale?
    Do not condone vaccines, or condone Genocide, until proven otherwise.

    1. Me: Over 30 years, never ill, never got a cold or the flu or a coronavirus: Mix one heaped teaspoon of salt (I use shop bought, Iodine based, table salt) in a mug of clean cold or warm water, cup a hand and pour in some solution, sniff or snort the entire contents up your nose, in small doses, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If a burning sensation, then you have a virus in your nasal passages, behind your eyes, in the escutcheon tubes to your inner ears, brain bulb, brain stem (hence Long Covid) so wait until burning stops (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose with toilet paper and flush away, washing your hands afterwards. Do my free salt water cure morning, noon, night, or more often if you want for a quicker result, until it feels like you are flushing with water – job done – or go to the sea and sniff or snort salt water up your nose and around your nasal passages – same thing. Probably good for Long Covid too.
      The 5 day isolation, is when the Coronavirus transmutes to Covid in your head, passed down into your body in the one liter of snot we each produce daily, the engine oil of the body, in my opinion – a vaccine in your arm is not going to heal a Coronavirus in your head, nor the residue after a Covid type flu has passed, in your head, is it?
      It can take up to 2-3 weeks after clearing a virus infection in the head, for Covid to occur in the body.
      My free salt water cure does what no synthetic mRNA vaccine will ever be able to do – it kills the virus in the nasal passages of the head, before it gets to become anything else and it is the method which has kept me “never ill” for over 30 years and there is no reason why your health should not be the same as mine, if you do as I do. Cost zero – time taken less than 3 minutes, each complete snort or sniffle.
      Needless to say, do whenever you think you might have caught an airborne nasal infection, from someone else.
      Probably good for Long Covid, as it flushes your nasal passages out and leaves no place, not washed. So much for synthetic mRNA vaccines – you get a head cold and you inject a vaccine in your arm to clear it – like duh!! – much laughter, you have got to be kidding, right?

    2. As someone who mindlessly walked up for previous vaccines I confess I did this out of ignorance and belief that all vaccines were benign not through research on my part. Like many people I am now alerted to the fanaticism behind vaccines as demonstrated by the behaviour of many professionals associated with this technology during the covid era. I will never take another vaccine until I can satisfy myself that through rigorous, transparent and independent clinical trials they are proven to be safe, not trials performed by people who have a vested interest in the outcome being good. I feel for all the parents who have an uphill battle in moving through the quagmire of misinformation coming from every direction especially from “official” sources.

  3. No humyn virus has ever been isolated intact using the proper controls. Christine Massey has submitted thousands of FOIA type requests to govt agencies around the world requesting proof that COVID exists and not a single agency has responded with proof. Moreover, no randomized controlled trial has ever been conducted regarding any vaccine. No comparison of vaccinated Children with unvaccinated has ever been made. I am heartened that this debate is taking place in a respectful manner. Dismantling the entire virology narrative and vaccine narrative is critical to stopping the 4th industrial revolution. (Dismantling the entire carbon narrative is just as critical.) Just as urgent is the emergence of a unified hard left movement against technofascism because dominionism and Islam are the fallback positions if/when woke fails. I desperately want to start a Real Left USA out of existing groups and other voices.

    1. Many thanks to the author for taking the time to articulate much of what I thought about Claire’s response at the Real Left meeting.

      I was the audience member who raised the question regarding the existence of viruses citing the deeper research done, in particular, in the books ‘Virus Mania’ and ‘Dissolving Illusions’.

      Whilst I wouldn’t expect Claire, or anyone, to give support to the ‘virus-deniers’ stance without having done their own investigation and research, the reason given for seemingly not wishing to engage with the debate, however well-intentioned they may have been, did seem to go against any genuine scientific method. This debate needs to be moved firmly into the mainstream.

      With regard to engaging with people and winning them over to the ‘freedom movement’ it’s true you need to judge your audience but that doesn’t mean not having a position on the subject yourself. Personally, I never shy away from the subject but very rarely state categorically ‘Viruses don’t exist!’ but tend to introduce the subject with ‘There are a body of doctors who have done some deeper research and question that viruses exist’ or maybe ‘the science of virology’ and them recommend some reading material if they’re interested in finding out more to make up their own minds. Another good opener for me if you’re really unsure about the position of who you’re talking to is ‘Whatever your position on the events of the last 3 years, there were undeniably many lies told’ and see where it goes from there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.