All this week we have been publishing the key papers presented at The People’s Vaccine Inquiry press conference on Tuesday of last week. On Monday Dr Jonathan Engler, explained its purpose in view of Lady Hallett’s disgraceful refusal to honestly address the extent and cause of vaccine injury. On Tuesday Dr Elizabeth Evans shone her torch on Hallett’s total disregard for medical ethics accompanying the vaccines’ authorisation and roll-out. The third paper, delivered by consultant pathologist Dr Clare Craig, focussed not what was said at the Hallett Inquiry about vaccine ‘safety and efficacy’ but on what was not said. Today, retired paediatrician, Dr Ros Jones reports on the indefensible folly of the covid vaccine rollout for children that Hallett has also failed to address.
I’M ROS Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician, and I am here on behalf of over 200 experienced health professionals and academics. We’ve sent numerous letters to the regulators and politicians about the folly of covid vaccines for children, most reported by TCW.* We, like others here, were asked for a detailed witness statement which we provided, even agreeing to it being shared with one of their ‘experts’. When we were told we wouldn’t be called, we were nevertheless thanked and told our statements had been very useful to the Inquiry team in their deliberations.
However, nothing we provided was used at all. We were simply ascribed to the ‘misinformation brigade’. A propos of which, our first fully referenced letter with all our names was sent by Chris Whitty’s department to the Counter Disinformation Unit, who previously monitored online child pornography & terrorism! [Ed’s note: In fact a press release published on March 30 2020 announced that the Government was cracking down on ‘spread of false coronavirus information online’, that specialist units ‘are operating to combat misinformation about coronavirus’ and that ‘five to ten incidents are being identified and tackled each day‘.]
Following on from Dr Evans [the previous speaker], firstly the ethics:
It was very clear that whatever bug was doing the rounds in spring 2020, it did not affect children to any significant degree, yet the government measures caused disproportionate harm. It wasn’t just the school closures, it was the testing and masking and the ‘don’t kill your granny’ messaging. And parents saw first-hand the harms of lockdowns. So when the vaccines were presented as the only route back to normal, parents were not immune from the messaging.
The risk/benefit balance is widely variable by age so a one-size-fits-all was never right. Matt Hancock was absolutely clear this was an adult vaccine; Kate Bingham, chair of the Vaccine Taskforce, went further to say it was for over-50s with comorbidities. Professor Lim, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in his evidence confirmed that the phase 1 roll-out was expected to cover 99 per cent of the mortality from Covid-19. Yet none questioned why the vaccine juggernaut seemed to be unstoppable.
So that brings me to the approval process. MHRA authorised the use of Pfizer for 12-15s on the basis of 1131 vaccinated children followed for two months. You don’t need to be a medic to know that is not a measure of safety. Yet Kate Bingham said the studies were large! The Medicines Health products and Regulatory Authority (MHRA) only checked data provided by Pfizer. They then passed the baton to the JCVI.
The Moral and Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG), a multifaith and ethics group set up in 2019, asked specifically to be involved in discussions re children’s vaccine but their planned meeting in June was cancelled as they were told there were no plans to vaccinate kids. In fairness, JCVI meeting minutes show they were worried – they were looking at myocarditis reports from Israel and the US. And they said NO, not for healthy under-18s. But 48 hours later they held an emergency meetingat the request of Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to ‘reconsider their decision’. Why was Chris Whitty not questioned about this? Or about the CMO’s decision that this would help keep children in school and hence be good for mental health? He admitted their calculations (it worked out at 15 mins per child) allowed no time out of class for the vaccination procedure, let alone for any adverse effects.
Turning to myocarditis, this has been acknowledged and added to the patient information leafet, but their so-called expert misquoted the Oxford study, saying it showed more myocarditis with covid than with the vaccine (as stated in the conclusion sentence of their abstract) but even the results section of the abstract actually reported that for males under 40, myocarditis wassix timesmore likelyafter vaccination than after infection. Again the MHRA were never pinned down as to why they didn’t give more detail of rates by age to enable informed consent.
Everyone just kept repeating ‘VERY rare’ and ‘recovers quickly’. How rare depends on how hard you look. Israel, where the first cases were reported, sent letters to all their paediatricians, cardiologists and emergency physicians, telling them what to look out for and this resulted in ~ 1 in 6,000, so not ‘very rare’, Mr Keith, that is ‘rare’.
But Thailand did what the MHRA should have demanded of Pfizer: they organised a prospective study in two large secondary schools with cardiac blood tests and ECG before and 1/52 after vaccination and they found a worrying 1 in 29 with either clinical or subclinical myo- or pericarditis. That is ‘common’.
As for ‘recovers quickly’, teenagers admitted to US hospitals with chest pain seemed to recover quickly but 89 per cent had abnormal cMRIs. JCVI wanted to see their follow-up data before making a decision. If they had been allowed to delay, they would have learned that 60 per cent were still abnormal 6/12 later. These are abnormalities which have been associated with reduced five-year survival in viral myocarditis. These kids need their hearts for another 70 years!
Sajid Javid said Boris Johnson kept badgering him not to let Britain lag behind Spain and Israel, but instead of saying ‘PM, there’s a process that must be followed,’ he should have been saying, ‘Well, Prime Minister, it’s about a serious safety concern – I am sure you wouldn’t want to see children dying in your attempt to stay ahead in this race.’
Lastly, something else Mr Javid said was that he felt ‘if you get a vaccine, it should be for a positive reason: to want to protect your health or protect your loved ones from infection, rather than some kind of inducement.’Maybe he was unaware of the Charlton Athletic football tickets for the first 1,000 at their pop-up vacc hub. Moderna have been guilty of bringing the pharmaceutical Industry into disrepute for allowing a £1,500 offer to children participating in a trial of their new booster. To return to the legality of children only allowed to receive treatments for their own personal health benefit, who authorised these NHS advertisements? I despair!
*A list of those letters and campaigns which Dr Jones led or was central to published at the time on TCW:
Why Johnson must halt this dangerous child vaccine programme
Sixty doctors plead with chief medical officers to reject child vaccination
Our constellation of concerns over vaccine for children
Deafening silence of health watchdogs over danger of child jabs
Why are watchdogs still deaf to the danger of child jabs?
Post-vaccine myocarditis is not ‘mild’, warn doctors
Health professionals: Join our child vaccine plea to the new PM
