Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

UPDATE: Uruguay Judge Suspends COVID-19 Jab for Children Under 13 Until Certain “Conditions” Met


In a recent ruling by a Uruguayan judge, the government and Pfizer had to present all information related to the experimental COVID-19 shots.

It also requested the possible presence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements,” as well as proof of the injection’s efficacy and safety.

Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) Judge Alejandro Recarey made the order in response to a request to suspend the immunization of children in Uruguay.

“The summons is part of a protection process initiated to suspend the application of these vaccines in children; among other things, it seeks to know if the “so-called vaccines” contain “nanotechnological elements,”” El Observador reported.

SIGN THE PETITION: Release The Epstein Client List!

On Thursday, Judge Alejandro Recarey ordered to suspend the COVID-19 jab for children under 13 years of age as long as certain conditions are not met, El Observador reported.

From El Observador (translated):

The suspension will continue until certain “conditions” are met. One of them is that “publish or publish in full and without proof, all purchase contracts for these vaccines. As well as all documents attached to them, especially all those that detail the composition of the substances to be vaccinated.” Another condition that the ruling requires is that “a text be drawn up – to be supplied to those responsible for minors who are vaccinated – to report fully and clearly on the following points:

  • The composition of the injectable substances (all the elements they contain, of whatever nature).
  • The benefits of the vaccine.
  • The risks you have in detail of their nature, probability, magnitude and, if possible, time of occurrence.
  • Clarify that the substance has only emergency authorization and not definitive, explaining in terms simple what difference do these two types of permissions make in specific order to private weighting of the above risks.
  • That the adverse effects already detected be detailed, in their entirety by regularly updating this information.
  • The controls to which the State is obliged by art. 2 inc. 5 of Law No. 9202 are carried out.

The MSP is going to “conform and appeal” the decision, as the Undersecretary of Health, José Luis Satdjian, told El Observador. He has three days to appeal.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!