A group of 30 MPs, peers, doctors and scientists – including MPs Miriam Cates, Graham Stringer and Sir Desmond Swayne and scientists Professor Allyson Pollock, Professor David Livermore and Professor Anthony Brookes – have written again to the JCVI calling for the Covid vaccination programme in healthy under-16s to be paused pending further studies, arguing that the evidence the benefits outweigh the risks is lacking.
The group first wrote to the Government vaccine advisory committee in early January to raise their concerns and received a reply on January 20th from Professor Wei Shen Lim, COVID-19 Chair of the JCVI. He disputed the relevance of the recent study showing that myocarditis risk following vaccination in young males is higher than previously thought, and argued the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of Omicron as a milder and vaccine-evading variant are not necessarily decisive as further variants may emerge. He also stated that the JCVI’s advice regarding the primary course of vaccination did not predetermine its advice regarding further ‘booster’ doses – apparently not being concerned about logical coherence, in that recommending boosters when a primary course is not recommended would defy sense.
The authors found this response very inadequate and have now set out in a reply why the JCVI must take seriously the evidence on risk and lack of benefit for this age group. Their letter is published in full below, beneath the letter from Prof. Lim to which they are replying.
Response to Professor Wei Shen Lim
February 2022
Dear Professor Wei Shen Lim,
Thank you for your response to our letter of January 7th. We are concerned that you still appear to be supporting the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for healthy children, who are most unlikely to suffer any significant illness from the virus, without reassessing benefits and harms in light of new evidence.
The child vaccination programme seems to be ineffective in reducing infection and transmission and, among other as-yet-unknown possible adverse effects, is associated with a risk of myocarditis – a serious condition, known in other cases to have a significant impact on lifelong morbidity and mortality.
Regarding comments concerning variants
Risk-benefit analyses are usually considered in the present, as this is where the decision is made. What is known of Omicron is that it is highly contagious but clinically milder. Therefore, post-infection or natural immunity will be acquired far faster across the population, further reducing the clinical usefulness of the vaccines in preventing infection and transmission. Indeed, it is known from a number of studies (two examples here and here) that natural immunity appears to be more robust than vaccine-induced immunity. A high number, perhaps the majority, of U.K. children are likely to have had COVID-19, so are well protected by natural immunity, and this is a number that is likely to be increasing all the time. This again begs the question as to why the JCVI has not reassessed the benefit-to-risk ratio of the child vaccination programme in light of the Omicron variant. Present understanding of respiratory viruses tells us that subsequent variants are highly likely to be milder rather than more severe in their clinical manifestation. We have no reason to suspect that SARS-CoV-2 will defy this evolutionary principle. Children will also almost certainly have broader immunity against future variants from Omicron infection, compared to vaccine-induced immunity from current vaccines, which were developed to an earlier variant spike protein no longer in common circulation. When all that is now known is considered within the previous JCVI criteria, the benefit of the vaccine reduces further. The risks, however, remain unchanged or are increasing as new adverse events following vaccination are recognised.
Regarding comments concerning myocarditis
We refer here to data from Hong Kong and Israel. In Hong Kong, the myocarditis rate was one in 2,680 using the Comirnarty (Pfizer) vaccine (not Moderna) in male 12-17 year-olds.
In Israel, rates were one in 6,637 in 16-19 year-old males after the Pfizer vaccine.
This issue is therefore highly relevant to the U.K. situation, with mid-late teenage males at higher risk of myocarditis. Of note, a U.S. study indicated a high rate of gadolinium enhancement in mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis, consistent with myocardial scarring and long-term damage.
The lower reporting rate in the U.K. may reflect the lack of a formal study of this age group, and the suggestion that a longer interval between first and second doses could reduce the risk is speculative. In view of the concerns raised in the original JCVI review, it is remarkable that a formal study, with serial troponin monitoring, as well as serial cardiac assessments, in post-vaccinated males in this age group, with an appropriate control group, is not yet available.
Myocarditis is only one of the now proven adverse effects of these vaccines. Does the JCVI not agree that when adding in the unknown long-term harms (especially relevant for the young, with many years of healthy life expectancy ahead of them) the risk of the vaccine now exceeds the risk of the virus for the majority of children?
Regarding primary course and boosters
The sole purpose of vaccinating children ‘not in a clinical risk group’ would appear to be to reduce community transmission. Current data from the U.K. Health Security Agency (HSA) and Public Health Scotland are highly inconsistent with reduced transmission through vaccination overall, with a trend of relative increase in the ratio of vaccinated infection versus unvaccinated infection over time. This trend, and data elsewhere showing rapidly waning vaccine efficacy against infection with the Omicron (and Delta) variants over time, raise a very strong probability that vaccine efficacy will follow a similar pattern in teenagers. The UKHSA trend over time has been consistent with waning efficacy in higher age groups, corresponding to the prior time of vaccination of those age groups. This would remove all theoretical benefits of vaccinating healthy children.
Conclusion
In view of the above, the concerns raised in the original letter have not been addressed. Further, we find it genuinely remarkable that, given the prior JCVI concerns, formal studies have not been put in place during the rollout in these age groups with acknowledged limited benefit and significant knowledge gaps regarding safety.
The further data on myocarditis, the clear evidence of far lower risk and high rate of mild infection with the Omicron variant, and the evidence of waning vaccine efficacy in older age groups must all push the risk-benefit ratio previously discussed by the JCVI strongly in the direction of further risk and lesser benefit to children. Does the JCVI agree that the benefit-to-risk ratio is now reduced further, compared to when it previously advised against recommending the mass vaccination of healthy 12-15 year-olds?
What is the urgency to vaccinate healthy children at this time? Pausing the current vaccine programme in children would allow time to undertake the necessary research which would resolve the difficulties affecting the current decision making. The JCVI is tasked with the responsibility of considering vaccine safety and efficacy and as such every effort should be made to assess both safety and efficacy of a new vaccine in the early stages of its deployment, especially for children and young people.
Yours sincerely,
Miriam Cates MP
Thomas Coke, the Earl of Leicester
Richard Drax MP
Baroness Foster of Oxton
Baroness Fox
Marcus Fysh MP
Paul Girvan MP
Chris Green MP
Mark Jenkinson MP
Pauline Latham MP
Karl McCartney MP
Lord Moonie
Baroness Morrissey
Greg Smith MP
Graham Stringer MP
Sir Desmond Swayne MP
Sammy Wilson MP
Dr David Bell, Public Health Physician, formerly working on infectious diseases for the WHO
Professor Anthony Brookes, Genomics and Health Data Scientist, University of Leicester
Professor Norman Fenton, Risk Information Management, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Iona Heath CBE, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners (2009 to 2012)
Professor Marilyn James, Health Economics, University of Nottingham
Dr John Lee, Retired Professor of Pathology
Professor David Livermore, Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia
Dr Aseem Malhotra, Consultant Cardiologist
Professor David Paton, Industrial Economics, University of Nottingham
Professor Allyson Pollock, Clinical Professor of Public Health, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University
Dr Gerry Quinn, Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster
Dr Roland Salmon, MRCGP, FFPH, former Director of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (Wales)
Professor Brent Taylor, Professor Emeritus of Community Child Health, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My advice in life in general is not to get too excited by phenomena.Just chill and contemplate the deeper levels.
Chill? Haven’t you heard about warming.
Warming.Cooling !!! the morons have told so many lies. while pushing their scam they themselves cannot get the story right
It’s bound to be difficult for serial liars to keep with their own nonsense, so have a care for them.
My personal favorite is still the winter 2020/21 in Germany when amounts of snow which seemed very moderate, although more like winter than what has been the norm for about 25 – 30 years, to someone who lived in the 1970s and 1980s, went through the headlines as examples of extreme weather caused by climate change.
To a climate change zealot, everything is evidence of climate change.
Snow is extreme weather.
Hot weather is also extreme.
And mild weather is proof that the weather isn’t how it used to be because we used to have more hot and cold spells.
You can never win with these people.
That’s a special case of To someone with an axe to grind, everything proves that he has been right all the time (or rather, he utilizes everything to claim that). But this story was obviously targetted at people lacking person experience with snowy winters and supposed to scare them. Hence, pointing out that this was by no means extreme make sense.
Lomberg provides the answer to this.
30 years ago there wasn’t a cellphone on the planet. Nowadays you can’t go anywhere without tripping over someone reporting rain as extreme weather.
What we’re seeing is an upsurge in detection of extreme weather, not extreme weather itself.
I agree, but it’s not detection as such that has increased, rather the globally-connected news media, as you say, has reporters poised everywhere to look out for some heavy rain and connect it to climate change in some sensationalist headline. If the above graphs are anything to go by, then detection of the relevant metrics by meteorologists has been sound for at least a century. But it just wasn’t used so fervently to prop up a narrative that green activists are so desperately trying to resuscitate.
Detection of hurricanes, wildfires and weather fronts have increased dramatically since satellites were first used in the mid 70’s.
Doppler radar now detects tornadoes that were never seen. They can disappear as quickly as they appear.
No. What we’re seeing is geo engineering or now known as solar radiation management! You could not make it up.
All you need to know (if you’re interested) is here:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
Make sure to check out the ‘About’ page to see how the site started.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
As far as I can gather, geoengineering (chemtrails) goes something like this.
Global warming is happening and will be catastrophic, so we’ll seed the clouds and such like to stop the planet warming. But the alarmists say it’s still warming, so it can’t be working.
If it is working and the earths temperature should be 5ºC above where it is now, why is no one stepping forward to take credit for stopping the warming using chemtrails?
If the planet isn’t warming to any considerable degree, then why continue to use chemtrails?
You need to read at least some of the content on the website I posted above. All answers to your questions; and then some; will be revealed.
I’ve looked into chemtrails before. It could be happening, the technology is available, but why would they do it, for the reasons I gave?
It is very deeply disturbing and answers many questions I have been puzzling over regarding the construction of the “Climate Emergency” as a weapon now seemingly being used against the population of the world.
We currently seem to be under attack from every direction – including the blue skies above us!
In the midst of this Carbon Dioxide is clearly not the problem, growing human ‘unreason’ is!
Oh dear I was really hoping that I would be able to avoid chemtrails but if its ‘deeply disturbing’ I now have a moral duty to investigate. I can see why people just ignore it all and carry on in blissful ignorance. This little light of mine is getting dimmer by the day.
Why indeed?
Ask the Industrial,Military Scientific, Deep State Complex, which control all US policies in all matters and exports them to the world.
Devastating website!
Explains the Chen Trails I know see every blue sky day over my house!
Yes. You can see a beautiful blue sky slowly turning white as a couple of planes fly back and forth emitting this toxic rubbish. Then watch as the plumes feather out across the sky eventually blocking out the sun. Several days later the weather turns cold, wet and miserable….. or worse depending on what havoc TPTB want to reap!
It’s very interesting reading why Dane Wigginton set up the site and about his engineering background.
Once you begin connecting all the different dots across myriad subjects, you slowly begin to see the elephant in the room…or…the world we think we live in.
This is a great video about observation originally made for a campaign about bike safety.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
That’s the story of the news generally. Up until a few decades ago, international ‘news’ was usually stale by the time anyone received it.
Australian cameraman Neil Davis relates in Frontline how the footage he shot in Vietnam took a week reach the tv reports. Now you can practically see the carnage in real time.
See geoengineeringwatch.org for explantions.
Could also describe the last two years of covidmania. Or wokery, the obsession with slavery and imperialism. Sexism and misogyny. You name it.
Exaggeration without context. Millions are dying from a rebranded flu. Our cities were built on slavery, despite the industrial revolution providing the wealth. Women are treated more poorly now than they were in 1850.
Is the antidote to provide the context? Probably not.
Australia, which since colonisation until the 1980’s, was known as “The Land of Flood and Fire”.
The perfect weathervane for climate alarmists, if you forget it’s history.
Well its been bloody freezing most of April, global warming my arse. There has always been extreme weather but what there hasn’t always been is an internet connecting together bilions of fuckwits
If you want policies that can’t be challenged base them on something unpredictable like the weather. That sounds like a quote from ‘Last of the summer wine’.
The weather is both unpredictable and predictable in that from time to time something extreme will happen, it always has.
Just think about it, the warmer it gets we will be able to spend less on heating our homes, so saving on extortionate utility bills, leading to fewer fossil fuels being used. Win, win…
Its been a very late spring
Not according to the nature diary I’ve been keeping since I moved here in 2011.
It has been a really good spring for wood anemones, early purple orchids and wood spurge.
Blossom on Damson trees was very early!
To extend Cloud6’s comment. Reduced northern sea ice could mean a newly-navigable and much shorter journey for container ships bringing all our stuff from China. Hence, less diesel consumption. Result! But the impending depression will see to that anyway.
As the covid fraud depends on people getting ill, as they always have done; climate change fraud depends on crappy weather, which we’ve always had.
But hypothetically speaking, if man made climate change is real, why won’t the BBC talk about those most likely to be responsible?
What do we suppose happens when the Saudis transform entire desert regions into green hills? I’d expect it to cause strong winds in other parts of the world when the oxygen produced by the greenery rises too fast due to the scorching temperatures out there.
What do we suppose happens when the Chinese dump X-amount of sand into international waters to build countless new islands and claim as military territory? A slight rise in sea levels per chance? This is also the trendy thing to do in Abu Dhabi for celebrities to buy their own islands.
I don’t think the sea is rising but if the Greta gang want to complain about the possibility that it is, they need to start with the obvious suspects.
Of course this won’t happen because it’s another fraud to move along Agenda 21-30.
Extreme weather in the UK!! Giving a rainy/windy day a name does NOT make it extreme.
I would say: “I’m just waiting for the nutters to blame extreme cold” on the supposed warming … but they’ve already done that.
Those who remember, and were in the path of, the 1987 ‘hurricane’ in the UK…can you imagine that event occurring now and the massive flurry of doom it would cause amongst the climate worriers? My god, they’d be wetting themselves with the excitement of it, and it would be held up as an example of imminent catastrophe.
I flew back into Gatwick the morning after, took me 8 hours to get down to the south coast, hardly any transport, roads closed plus all my fences gone in the garden, memories!
This diagram looks very like one in The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray (and many other publications on the same subject) showing that small group differences in mean intelligence make a big difference at the extremes. I hope Matt Taylor has not been reading heresy.
By the way, are the temperatures of heatwaves normally distributed? I don’t know, but I should have imagined that low and high energy events would conform to a power law like earthquakes.
Way too soon to be trying the Horror Weather scenario again. But it must say something about the R vs U story’s lack of success that it needs to be replaced after just two or three months. And that was in itself timed to distract from the crumbling covid narrative.
Weather forecasters are even bigger liars than politicians. You get a forecast from Barbie after the news that its going to be sunny tomorrow, then 30 seconds later you get the local Barbie doing local weather, telling us that it will rain. I wish I could work a job where there are no consequences to my output.
Far to much money is being made by too many people for any of this nonsense to go away any time soon.
Also it gives government an unacceptable level of control over us, just as the “pandemic” did.
There are lies, damned lies and climate change propaganda. No prizes for guessing which is the worst.
Climate change is racist
The Climate Alarmists remind me of the cartoon Scooby-Doo which I watched as a child. In every episode the young, impressionable group gets “spooked” by a ghost/monster ….. they panic and run frantically about … only for the ghost/monster to be revealed as a hoax.
The “climate crisis” and the monster CO2 are exactly the same….. a hoax.
a “water specialist” from the U.S., Peter Gleick from the National Academy of Sciences
I may have picked a different ‘specialist’.
Document forgery for the ’cause’ tends to give the game away.
What is in the Chem Trails and what are they doing to the atmosphere?
Chem trails contain highly toxic molecules of H2O, which are programmed by the CIA to evaporate and become invisible after a few minutes.
Their main effect is to fuel conspiracy theories and turn men into Incels, to stop them breeding.
The thing about ‘bad weather’ or ‘extreme weather events’ is that the outcomes of identical events might be different in history due to the general human population and the amount of concrete covering the land.
Anyone who has lived in a hilly part of a major city has seen how a cataclysmic thunderstorm can turn a road into a torrential river. Concrete doesn’t let water soak through and the only escape is drains. If it had been a field of grass, there would probably have still been running water, but far less of it. So the outcomes of the same storm are now ‘more extreme’. Damn city dwellers, eh?!
But most of the arguments are based on complete historical ignorance. I’ve barely come across a single UK greenie who has heard of the great 1961/62 flood in California. That’s the single greatest extreme flooding event in the modern history of California. It hinged on the pineapple express systems from Hawaii hitting California at just the right angle so that the contours of the Sierra Nevada were almost at right angles to the direction of the storm: that caused maximum stalling of the weather system when it hit the mountains and caused maximum rainfall south and west of the range. The crux of the 1861/62 event was that storm after storm seemed to approach at pretty much the optimal angle and quite a few were pretty warm, so less snow fell and more rain fell, which caused the entire central valley to turn into a vast inland lake which remained a lake for most of the 1862 growing season.
It’s the same with the great 1987 storm in the South of England. Those sorts of winds really aren’t that rare in the NW Highlands and the Shetlands, but because they came down south in areas of high population, they became an ‘extreme weather event’. Up in the Shetlands, they never build houses with more than one storey because they know what winds they can get. The population density of the NW Highlands is so low that 100mph winds is rarely ‘newsworthy’.
The reality is that recordings of historical events tend to be much more qualitative than the data-driven hypochondria of today. We do know, however, that great floods in China in the late 19th- and early 20th century were far, far worse than anything the West has experienced the past 50 years. Far, far worse. But that doesn’t fit the PC narrative, does it?
We know that there have been California droughts lasting a few centuries, but everyone keeps damn quiet about that too. Just accepting that California isn’t usually a temperate rainforest like Washington State doesn’t fit the scaremongerer’s agenda, does it?
We know that the Romans grew grapes in Lincolnshire the best part of 2000 years ago, which doesn’t fit well with us suddenly being the hottest we’ve ever been. So keep quiet about that too, eh?
And as for the growth of the Caledonian Forest 5000 years ago being promoted by warmer, agreeably damper climes? Off with my head for raising those inconvenient truths….
1861/62 flood in California, not 1961/62. Damn typo and inability to edit!!
As weather events are driven entirely by energy – ie thermal – gradients, perhaps it is worth noting that if the Earth is warming the due to the physics of thermal radiation Equatorial regions will warm less than the temperate and polar regions, so fewer violent events are likely to take place.
Hence it could be surmised that an increase in such events may be a precursor to a cooling trend.
“Extreme Weather” is nothing but WEATHER MANIPULATION using Haarp, Chemtrails, Ionospheric Heaters and others alike. There are tons of information out there regarding GEOENGINEERING; they manipulate the weather and then blame it on us – plus we know that CO2 is the gas of life!!! See: 1976 UN Weather Weapons Treaty!