Thomas Renz, an Ohio-based lawyer, is suing the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to halt the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines to children aged 15-years-old and younger.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Renz Law and America’s Frontline Doctors, is against the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) of the experimental jabs that “have had no long term studies on the impact on adults, much less children.”

Additionally, the lawsuit challenges the legality of “emergency use authorisation”, as this law states that children must be at risk, however, Renz states that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have said that children “are statistically at ZERO percent mortality rate by COVID-19.” Furthermore, the EUA states that it can only go into effect if there are no other viable treatments for the virus.

Within the motion, Renz outlines that: “The emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal since in fact there is no underlying emergency. Assuming the accuracy of Defendants’ COVID-19 death data, SARSCoV-2 has an overall survivability rate of 99.8% globally, which increases to 99.97% for persons under the age of 70, on a par with the seasonal flu.”

Therefore, there is no health emergency so the vaccines should not have been given emergency use authorisation in the first place, especially for people under the age of 18.

Within the lawsuit, Renz and his team state that the Covid-19 vaccines cause more harm than good, and the DHHS has failed to consider the damage that has been caused by the jabs. Under a section titled “The Known and Potential Risks of the Vaccine Outweigh their Known and Potential Benefits”, Renz states that the DHS can issue and maintain vaccine EUAs “only if” the known and potential risks of each vaccine are outweighed by the known and potential benefits.

He explains that the typical vaccine development process takes around 10 to 15 years, which consists of multiple stages including research and discovery, pre-clinical animal studies, and clinical human trials, which are separated into four phases. Renz points out that this typical process has been abandoned for the Covid-19 vaccines, as the first cases of the virus were not confirmed until January 20th, 2020, and less than a year later both mRNA vaccines had EUAs, which were then quickly rolled out and promoted to the masses.

Renz highlights the risks of the spike proteins which is a “pathogenic protein” and a “toxin that causes damage”, stating that if the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, it causes profound damage to their cardiovascular system, and crosses the blood-brain barrier to cause neurological damage.

The lawsuit argues that due to the risks and clear dangers of these vaccines, they should not be administered to children. To support this, Renz states that only 1.7% of all Covid-19 cases in the US were among those younger than 18- years of age, therefore to jab this group would be irresponsible and criminal.

“CDC data indicates that children under 18 have a 99.998% COVID-19 recovery rate with no treatment. This contrasts with over 45,000 deaths (see below) and hundreds of thousands of adverse events reported following injection with the Vaccines.

“The risk of harm to children may be as high as 50 to 1. Thus, children under 18 are at no statistically significant risk of harm from SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

“Administering Vaccines to this age group knowingly and intentionally exposes them to unnecessary and unacceptable risks.”

To add to this, the lawsuit argues that children aged 12-18 are not developmentally capable of giving voluntary, informed consent to the government, highlighting how it is dangerous that local governments are passing laws eliminating the requirement for parental consent, and even parental knowledge, on the administration of Covid vaccines for children.

Renz states that children can be easily influenced and are susceptible to peer pressure to do what others see as the morally correct thing to do, which in this case involves being injected with a vaccine “for the sake of other people and society.”

“Injecting this under-18 subpopulation with the Vaccines threatens them with immediate, potentially life-threatening harm. The documented risks of injecting this subpopulation with the Vaccines far outweigh the purported benefits.”

Instead, Renz Law and America’s Frontline Doctors argue that there are other more effective treatments for Covid-19 that should be used, but have been ignored and dismissed by the DHHS and other health authorities in favour of vaccines.

For example, treatments such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Dexamethasone, Vitamin D, Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine, were named as effective treatments which are far safer than the Covid-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit highlights how a study on Hydroxychloroquine by Doctors from the Smith Center for Infectious Disease and Urban Health and the Saint Barnabas Medical Center, titled an “Observational Study on 255 Mechanically Ventilated COVID Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic“, stated that: “Causal modeling establishes that weight-adjusted HCQ [Hydroxychloroquine] and AZM [Azithromycin] therapy improves survival by over 100%.”

Furthermore, studies from Dehli and Mexico City were outlined which “show dramatic reductions in COVID-19 case and death counts following the mass distribution of Ivermectin.

“These results align with those of a study in Argentina, in which 800 healthcare professionals received Ivermectin, while another 400 did not. Of the 800, not a single person contracted COVID-19, while more than half of the control group did contract it.”

The plaintiffs argue that DHHS and other health authorities had the responsibility of researching alternate treatments for Covid-19, which they failed to do as they opted with censoring concerns about the vaccines, and safe and effective alternatives.

In conclusion, the lawsuit seeks to prevent the continued EUA of all currently used Covid-19 vaccines, specifically highlighting the dangers of this being administered to under 18s.

Whilst this lawsuit is a step in the right direction for holding big pharma and those in power accountable for causing harm to the masses – especially children – it is expected that Covid-19 vaccines could be approved for children as young as six months old in the US by winter.

Currently, in the UK, Covid-19 vaccines are not available for children. However, the UK government announced in June that they are hoping to roll out the jabs for all children over the age of 12 by late summer following guidance from the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

The former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock said: “I’m delighted that the regulator, having looked very carefully at the data, with typical rigor and independence, has come forward and said the jab is safe and effective for those who are over the age of 12”

“We are taking advice from the JCVI on putting that into practice.”

Whilst it is only early days for this lawsuit, it will be interesting to see how it develops and what impact it has on the current vaccine agenda. After all, it would be criminal to continue administering vaccines that have caused over 1,037,376 adverse reactions and 1,440 deaths as of 30th June 2021, and it would be heartbreaking to see children appear in these reports here in the UK.