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.
Exactly as predicted by Lockdown Sceptics in March 2020 – those crazy, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist anti-vaxx flat-earth nutjobs.
Maybe they shouldn’t have flipping pushed for them then.
Just a thought.
BINGO
Does anyone (on here) really believe the WHO give a toss about the mental health of children in the developed world?
When I hear the likes of the WHO talking about the harms of lockdowns, what I’m really hearing is the ground work being laid for their scheme to respond quickly to future “pandemic” threats, as a solution to avoiding lockdowns. i.e. the immediate production and deployment of jabs, aka Bill Gates’ vision of the future.
Immediate? Coo, I wonder how many that’ll kill…
I should have thought that the majority of people, of whatever age, suffered varying degrees of mental anguish during this global social experiment of using medieval superstition to combat a viral illness in the 21st century.
What must it have been like for adults living alone? Many people cannot bear being alone for long periods of time. Think in particular of those countries with strict incarceration measures, like Spain, Italy, Peru. The worst lockdowns were often in countries where social contact is a major part of life. The reason we probably don’t hear more about how the elderly were affected is because a lot of them died as a result of the lockdowns before they could be surveyed. Others will have been so cognitively impaired from lack of contact and the vaxx that they would be unable to respond. We often hear tales of abuse in care homes, surely this too must have increased when family and friends were denied access and could not look out for their loved ones?
What of the mental health of people whose relationships broke down, who lost their business, their income, their homes?
Absolutely right to point out that the young paid the highest price, but by focusing on the young we are leaving the road open for applying measures to just those over 50 or 60. In NL they are planning the next poke of poison in the autumn to be aimed at those 60 and older. It has been ‘voluntary’ in NL, but what if they decided to commit the outright discrimination and breach of human rights that Italy and I believe France too already did, i.e. restricting the rights of people over 50/60, excluding them from society unless they got their 3rd dose of poison. There was no outrage over this blatant discrimination and I cannot understand why. Where are the real doctors? How can they possibly support this? Where are the human rights lawyers, the courts? The fundamental rights and freedoms that made the West a great place to live were hard fought and won and the people with the biggest gobs about these rights have been the most silent throughout this ridiculous episode. Shame on them.
I’ve been reading this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34921573-lost-connections
Lost Connections.
It’s a bit anthropological.
One of the things it mentions it that Loneliness is one of the absolute WORST stressors / causes of bad health / shortened life etc far above for instance Obesity. This has been known for decades ( couple of studies done in the 70’s )
Speaking as one of those adults who lives alone & was isolated – it was absolutely bloody awful! If I didn’t have my dog I know I wouldn’t be here now.
The judiciary has been captured, the lawyers are too scared of losing their huge salaries or a partnership to speak up & the human rights brigade only speak up for the right kind of human rights…..
Yes, it can be horrible. I work from home and while living abroad over the years have had many days in a row without seeing anyone unless I left the house. If you are experiencing difficulties (perhaps a falling out with someone, a break-up, or in this case a global panic and loss of all rational thought) it can get really dark. Dogs are absolutely the best!!
I was really ill with the wild original version of the bioweapon covid toxin, nearly killed me via respiratory difficulties. He absolutely is the best! Wouldn’t let me close my bedroom door one night – lay across the threshold & wouldn’t move. He woke me up, I could hardly breathe. He now sleeps on the bed! As I was really ill & nobody was prepared to break the “rules” at that time, I was incredibly isolated & struggling. Dogs are absolutely the best
Indeed, IMHO even the “focused protection” crowd ended up making too many concessions to the lockdown zealots in that regard. They also unfortunately disregarded early treatment and prophylaxis as well, making them (inadvertent) kissing cousins to the lockdown zealots.
What must it have been like for adults living alone? Many people cannot bear being alone for long periods of time.
Pretty awful. Due to my employer being on a different continent than me, I’m always working from home. I’m probably autistic (no intent to try to get this diagnosed), hence, I don’t really have much social contact. I usually just go to a pub, have a couple of beers and sometimes, briefly talk to someone I’ve known for long enough and like (at least a couple of months of slient communication/ observation) beyond what’s necessary at the counter. My usual work times (aligned with office hours in Texas) are 3pm – 11pm UK time. Minus a brief shopping trip among masked, socially-distanced and disinfected zombies, I spent the complete lockdown and curfew period either home alone working (household and paid work) or with kilometer-long solitary walks in the middle of the night. I’ve more than once felt as if I was Lovecraft’s outsider, undead and eternally damned to keep away from the bright and happy world existing somewhere above. And I was lucky in this respect: Had I been living in Germany, the nightly walks had also been prohibited (general curfew tailored to the work times of the 9-5 crowd). Probably wouldn’t have cared for that, though.
Considering that I’m absolutely not a social person, this was certainly still a lot easier for me than for many other people more used to human contact.
Was working at a friend’s house he has a two year old daughter. She was really nervous around me and my work colleague and didn’t want to come near us, screamed if we got within 5m. He just shrugged it off and said ‘lockdown baby’. I know a two year old can behave like this but the casual way in which he said it disturbed me as if it was a an excuse. Lovely couple and lovely child but it does make you wonder about her future development.
Does this mean that pre-covid, 4 billion people in the world had a mental health disorder and now there are 5 billion? (or is it a billion in total? Should I join the SAGE school of math?)
If so, this means that there are only 2 billion left that would be considered “sane”. If this trend continues, computer models will predict that in 2 years time, around 14 billion people will have a mental illness (I know there are not 14 billion people on earth, but if we all develop split personality disorder, then there will be)
If the majority of people have a disorder, does that mean that the remaining 2 billion are actually the ones that are “not normal”?
If you’re not mentally scarred after what has been done to you after the past two years, then there probably is something wrong with you.
Not scarred, more bloody furious.
So are they pleading guilty? Or trying to transfer it to others?
They’ll all say “ich bin nicht Schuld [I am not guilty]”, just like in Andorra.
I doubt if the (sadly far too many) children who were murdered by their abusive parents and their partners during the lockdowns are suffering from mental illnesses. Or those who starved to death.
The EVIL perpetrated against children by the WHO, Fauci, Gates and various Governments including our own, is unforgivable. At the very least, they should be charged with Child Abuse.