We have just heard that all 16 and 17 year olds are to be offered the COVID injection, without the need for parental consent, with certain 12-15 year olds also being included in the rollout. The Government has already produced behavioural change plans for children (see here and here), classroom materials have been developed (see here and here). It is even rumoured that children expressing hesitation about the Covid-19 vaccine can be reported to PREVENT. School immunisation professionals across the country are being recruited . And Pfizer are so confident that millions of children will be vaccinated they are already counting them in their revenue stream.
This determination to vaccinate our children should fill us with concern.
To be clear, I am not writing this as a medical or science professional, but as a mother who desires, above all, to protect her children, and has read widely and deeply about the covid vaccinations. Although I am not a professional expert in the field myself, I am drawing from the work of many who are. Also, I can decipher inconsistencies, I can triangulate information and see when there are holes. I can see when an argument has a political bias and whether it makes sense. All links are provided so you can check the evidence and do further research yourselves.
For the time being vaccination for 12-15 year olds is being restricted to those with severe learning or neuro-disabilities, Down’s syndrome and children from other “clinically vulnerable” groups.
12-15 year old children who live with immune suppressed adults are also up for vaccination. However, it should not be a child’s job to protect adults, particularly if there is a chance that this could involve a cost to themselves.
While for the moment the majority of children under 16 are being spared vaccination, once the vulnerable are vaccinated this will be used to show how “safe” the vaccine is regardless of the results. Then it will be our children’s turn. This is only a matter of time. Indeed the Spikevax (formerly Moderna) vaccine has just been approved for 12-17 year olds by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) are now set to advise the Government on whether this age group should be vaccinated as part of the deployment programme.
The importance of consent based on an assessment of risks and benefits
As the COVID vaccines are still in a trial stage they are subject to strict international ethical and legal requirements regarding consent and safety (see pages 6 and 7 here). In the UK we have particularly high standards of consent since the Montgomery Judgement which says that a doctor must provide information about all the material risks as well as information about reasonable alternatives to the treatment. These laws have not been upheld. We must ensure that when it comes to our children we know of the risks and benefits so that the standards of informed consent are preserved.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the mainstream media, which for many is a key source of information, the alleged benefits of the vaccine receive all the attention. There is very little said of the risks.
For the vast majority of children COVID-19 is a negligible risk
Even in the adult population research conducted before the introduction of the vaccine showed that deaths in adults without underlying conditions were remarkably uncommon. The Infection Fatality Rate (i.e the number of people dying in relation to the number infected) was estimated at 0.15%. Deaths among children are significantly less.
For example in March the American Centres for Disease Control (CDC) put the infection fatality ratio at 20 per million for children. With new research conducted here in the UK suggesting the IFR is 2 in a million the number has been significantly revised down.
Children with underlying conditions and COVID
The findings were mixed concerning children with underlying conditions. Early research suggested that these were not a risk factor in children. More recent research has suggested that the greater the number of co-morbid conditions, the greater the level or risk. Particularly where these conditions are cardiac related, gastro-intestinal or neurological. Very recent research has shown that a number of the conditions thought to increase the risks of COVID-related illness, like active asthma or cystic fibrosis, did not carry the risks previously assumed. It is worth noting that despite these various findings the overall conclusion is that the risk, even to vulnerable children, is very low. Indeed even official UK Government guidance (11 August 2021) still maintains that “children under 16 years of age, even if they are clinically extremely vulnerable, are at low risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19 and are not routinely recommended for vaccination”.
The benefits of natural immunity
Because COVID is not a risk to children some scientists argue that contracting COVID could benefit them as they would acquire a superior natural immunity (p.11 here). This would be a full spectrum immunity protecting them from new variants as they evolved. As the HART group explain:
‘Naturally acquired immunity, which is completely safe for children to obtain, is expected by scientists to be long-lasting as it has been from SARS-CoV-1, where those infected have been found to retain memory T-cell immunity 17 years post-infection. Natural immunity is therefore likely to be a better strategy for children, avoiding the need for multiple, recurrent vaccine booster doses over a lifetime’.
While many parents assume that covid carries risks for their children, as we will see later, it is actually the vaccine which carries the greater threat.
Children should not be regarded as vectors of disease
Some people believe that children should be vaccinated regardless of benefit to themselves. They prioritise alleged benefits to society. However, a healthy society builds on the wellbeing of its individuals rather than bypassing it. How we treat our children is probably the best proxy for how we treat individuals in society as a whole.
The risks of transmission have been overstated
The desire to have children vaccinated is borne of a fear of transmission. However, a number of factors have contributed to that fear being greatly overblown.
Firstly, there is an assumption that if we are infected with a virus we are ill. In fact we are infected with viruses all the time yet remain healthy (see here p.17). As long as we are asymptomatic, we cannot actually spread disease.
This was demonstrated in a large-scale study, which involved almost 10 million Chinese residents. No new infections could be traced to people who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, but who did not exhibit any other signs of infection. This was confirmed by lab research which showed that growth of the virus in cell culture ceased as symptoms subsided or shortly afterwards.
So, when a COVID case is identified by a PCR test in the absence of symptoms, this results in a significant overestimate of the number of people who are ill.
Unfortunately the number of people testing positive has been greatly enhanced by incorrect use of the PCR test throughout the pandemic to identify the ‘infected’ (see pages 5-7 here or here). It has come in for criticism by a number of organisations, there have been efforts to use it more selectively and others have argued it should be withdrawn. (see here, here and here)
Children may be less likely to transmit COVID
Even compared to adults children appeared less likely to transmit COVID. Teachers were no more likely to catch COVID than any other equivalent age and sex adjusted group. And as the JCVI reported there was almost no transmission reported within schools.
Even within households transmission from children was low. In fact, research suggested that when it came to catching COVID, and even to being hospitalised from it, the presence of children helped to strengthen their family’s immunity and therefore children had a protective effect.
Finally, there is increasing evidence emerging that the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection or transmission. Therefore, the argument in favour of vaccinating children simply doesn’t stand up.
Children suffered in the trial
There were 2,260 children from the ages of 12-15 included in the Pfizer children’s trial with half of them given the placebo and half given the vaccine. The trial was touted as demonstrating 100 per cent efficacy because 16 children in the placebo group (1.4 per cent) got COVID compared to none amongst those who were vaccinated.
This sounds good until you realise that the symptoms of those who were vaccinated were far worse and far more extensive than those who got the placebo. The sixteen who were said to have COVID had one or more of the symptoms including fever, a new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain and so on.
Among those children who received the vaccine 18 children altogether suffered from severe pain in the injection site. 114 suffered from fever, this went up to 215 with the second jab. Well over 600 children got headaches with each jab. Thirty-three of these children had severe headaches. A quarter to half the children got chills. With each jab around 30 children vomited. Sixty-five to 90 children got diarrhoea. Hundreds of children suffered from fatigue, joint pain and muscle pain. (see pages 25-27 here or pages 8-9 here)
Furthermore four of these children suffered from serious adverse events. Three suffered from such serious depression that they had to be hospitalised whilst the fourth ended up in a wheelchair with a smorgasbord of symptoms. You can hear her mother talking about it here in a press conference video which has since been banned from Twitter.
It is worth noting that two out of nine US children who are reported to have died from the COVID vaccination last week in the States died through suicide. This suggests the depression which children suffered in the trial should have been a cause for concern.
The evidence is absolutely unambiguous. The children who were vaccinated suffered. Those who received the placebo were greatly better off.
We don’t know enough about this vaccine
It is too soon to know about longer-term side effects
Vaccines normally take ten years to develop and this is for a very good reason. When the swine flu vaccine was rushed into circulation in 2009/10 it caused 1,800 cases of the debilitating and permanent neurological illness narcolepsy among adults and children across Europe. The COVID vaccine was developed in less than a year (here p.15). For children the phase three follow up in vaccine studies, which usually lasts between one and four years, was compressed into 30 days.
There was a lack of safety studies
It also appears that a number of the expected investigations, such as the vaccines’ interaction with other drugs, its genotoxicity and its impact on reproductive toxicity, have all been inadequately performed. At least one professor of immunology has argued that:
‘…further tests should have been required in order to assess the impacts on more tissues and for a longer time before the vaccine was authorized for use, especially in growing children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age’ (see here p.23).
Of particular importance was the lack of traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies which should have been done as there was already some existing evidence to show the vaccine material did spread around the body.
A summary of the lack of safety studies conducted on the Pfizer Vaccine have been listed here.
The children’s trial was too small to find out about the rare adverse effects
The trial for children was too small for rare adverse risks to emerge. For example, it was only after nearly 13 million people were injected that the risks of Guillaine Barre syndrome became clear. Myocarditis was identified in Israel at a rate of 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000. Thrombocytopenia emerged in one in 26,000 injections. Only 1,131 children 12–15 received the Pfizer vaccination. Only 283 16-17 year olds received the injection (here p.109). With these numbers rare events would have been extremely unlikely to emerge.
There is no control group
Another problem with the data is that the control group has been unblinded (see p.13) which makes a rigorous assessment of safety in the context of a well-controlled clinical study no longer possible. This leads to increased reliance on passive surveillance but this is highly unreliable.
For example, passive surveillance reporting to the VAERS database turned up a risk of anaphylaxis of 4.7 per million for the Pfizer vaccine and 2.5 per million for the Moderna vaccine. However, an active surveillance study revealed that the actual rate was 216 per million. See p.14 here.
There has been a huge amount of injury and death
In the meantime, a huge number of people are reported to have died or been injured.
For example In the EU 15,472 deaths have been reported and 1,509,266 people injured.
In the UK there have already been 1,517 fatalities and 1,102,228 adverse reactions reported on our MHRA yellow card reporting system.
And in Scotland between the 8th of December 2020 and 28th May 2021 there have been a total of 3,752 deaths within 28 days of receiving a covid vaccine.
518,770 adverse events have been reported in the US including 63,102 injuries and 11,940 deaths. The numbers of child injuries and deaths is increasing.
The under-reporting of adverse reactions
Research on vaccine adverse event underreporting suggests that this was a significant underestimate of the real number of deaths. This appears to have been confirmed. A whistle blower has stated in an affidavit that the number who have died in the US within three days of injection is closer to 45,000.
Despite the importance of this passive surveillance these adverse events are very seldom investigated and causes of death remain unknown.
The only organisation which appears to have given them proper attention here in the UK is The Evidence Based Medicine Consultancy which has concluded:
The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects.
The Government appear to be too busy preparing for a roll out on our children to give these facts and figures the attention they deserve.
Dangers are starting to emerge
Dangers of blood clotting
Just as smoking was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles these gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders based on their molecular mechanisms of action. These mechanisms are explained on p.21 here. Many doctors tried to draw attention to this, some even before the vaccine was launched (see here, here, here and here)
While little attention was paid to these doctors, evidence is suggesting they were right. For example, in the US there have been 7,864 reports of blood clotting disorders, 72 of these reports were in children. In the UK 13,766 bleeding, clotting and ischaemic ADRs were identified – 856 of which were fatal. While this type of problem was most conspicuous in the viral vector-based Astra Zeneca vaccine (which uses a chimpanzee adenovirus), which was then banned in a number of countries, it appears to be relevant to all the vaccines concerned.
Risks to fertility
When the vaccines were launched it was assumed that the mRNA vaccines, would stay in the injection site as traditional vaccines do. Unfortunately came to light which showed that the lipid nanoparticles which carried the spike protein producing mRNA travelled to and accumulated in many different parts of the body including the liver, spleen, bone marrow, the adrenal glands and ovaries. This matters because evidence has emerged (p.2) suggesting that the spike protein is biologically active and can interact with receptors throughout the body called ACE2 receptors, causing potentially undesirable effects.
For example, we know the mRNA might accumulate in the ovaries and if they started to express the spike protein this could result in damage with implications for fertility (here p.27). And while it is still too early to know the effect of the vaccine on fertility there is evidence of impact on reproductive organs. For example, as of 23 July 2,572 pregnant women in the US reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines including 885 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
Similarly, the report to the MHRA points out that there appears to be a disproportionate number of Adverse Drug Reactions among pregnant women in the UK – 307 altogether. These include one maternal death, 12 stillbirths, one newborn death following preterm birth, and 150 spontaneous abortions.
Menstrual disorders are also being increasingly reported as side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines, with women reporting issues ranging from heavier than usual periods, delayed periods, and unexpected vaginal bleeding. Dr Victoria Male, a reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London, believes that the number of women suffering reproductive disorders may be considerably higher. The Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCOM) reassure us that there is no evidence to suggest that the COVID jabs will affect fertility. However, there is no evidence to suggest they do not. It is also worth pointing out that some very senior immunologists wrote to the EMA before the launch of the vaccines, explaining that an impact on fertility was a very serious risk (see here p.5).
All in all it doesn’t really seem a good idea to give the vaccine to our teenage girls.
Antibody Dependent Enhancement
Another risk of the vaccine is Anti-body Dependent Enhancement which is a mechanism whereby the antibodies, rather than protecting a person from the infection, cause an increase in its severity (see here p.19). This ADE can cause a hyperinflammatory response (a ‘cytokine storm’) which will amplify the damage to lungs, liver and other organs of the body. Again, the authorities were alerted to the risks of ADE before the vaccines were launched and both the FDA and the European Medical Agency seem to have acknowledged this (see p.44 here and p.141 here).
However, no further investigation appears to have been carried out in order to ascertain the level of risk or protect people from ADE. This is unfortunate, because while for the time being the vaccinated are less likely to become infected by COVID-19 than the vaccinated, they are more likely to die should infection occur. This suggests that ADE could be at play.
Another danger which has been outlined (p.27 here) is that when the vaccines cause the muscle cells in the shoulder to express the spike protein this could pose a potential problem by resulting in an immune response being mounted against muscle tissue. As the heart is a muscle this could help to explain the problems which have been seen with myocarditis. As we have already seen myocarditis and pericarditis are problems caused by the vaccine and once again heart problems were anticipated by some doctors around the time that the vaccine was launched.
There has also been extensive research which proposes routes through which the vaccine could lead to neurodegenerative conditions. Again, the clinical mechanisms through which this could occur were described shortly after the vaccine was launched. Again there is ample evidence emerging from the reported adverse reactions to suggest that those who anticipated the possibility of neurological disease may actually have been right (see here and here).
This is only a small sample of some of the adverse effects which have been predicted or observed. A more rigorous assessment of the negative effects of the vaccines would require at least a whole book.
Accepting these risks might make sense in the face of a much more serious disease such as Ebola. Let us hope we are spared that situation. However, the vast majority of children are not at danger from COVID-19. While there are exceptions — for example, those children who suffer multiple comorbidities — these are also extremely rare and need to be weighed against the risks. Furthermore, there is increasing awareness about the prophylactics and protocols available to treat both adults and children which greatly reduce the chances of mortality (see pp 2-3 here).
Secondly, the Pfizer trial, as we have seen, makes it quite clear that the vaccine causes children a great deal more suffering than COVID-19 itself. To a lay person like myself, as well as to many experts, it seems quite surprising, to say the least, that it was authorised for use in any children at all.
And, while I am speaking as a lay person, my position is based on the work of numerous highly qualified and experienced doctors, scientists and medical organisations who have spelt out in detail the dangers and risks of vaccinating children. A comprehensive list has been prepared here.
At the moment we are lulled into a false sense of security. On the one hand, because so many of us have had the vaccine we assume it is safe and therefore don’t worry too much about it in relation to our children. And if we are concerned about the vaccines we think the authorities are ‘only’ going to vaccinate the “vulnerable” children under-16, and so we don’t need to start worrying about our “non-vulnerable” under-16 children being vaccinated just yet.
However, the writing is on the wall. The Government have been dishonest, as well as prone to frequent U-turns, throughout the pandemic and this is unlikely to change now. The evidence provided at the beginning suggests they will come to vaccinate even our younger children and this will probably happen at quite short notice. We need to start reading the documents shared in this article. We need to share the information provided here with all the other parents we know. We need to start talking to our children’s headteachers about how we will feel if they start to vaccinate our children (letters we can use are provided here and here). We need to inform our children about the implications of vaccination.
Then it will not be the Government who decides whether or not our children are vaccinated but we the parents will decide. Because it is we who truly love and want to protect our children in the best way possible — and we must and will be prepared.
Belinda Brown is a journalist who has written extensively on gender politics, sex education and the lgbt agenda. She has a particular concern with the well-being of our children and the havoc which the response to covid has been wreaking on our children and the future of the country. She is determined to prevent further damage being done.