Should Children Be Vaccinated?
Should we be vaccinating children? A group of UK doctors think not because a) the benefit for children doesn’t justify the risk and b) because trials have not been completed and published in peer-review journals. What’s your view? Here are a few salient facts.
The biggest study yet of children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 has revealed that the virus poses a “vanishingly small” threat to school students. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) analysed the outcome of 651 children hospitalised with coronavirus in England, Wales and Scotland. The research spanned two-thirds of all children’s admissions in the UK between January and July last year and “confirms what is already known about the minimal effects of the virus on children”, the BBC reports. All of the children that were killed by the virus suffered from underlying health issues, including “cancer and serious neurological, blood or heart issues”, The Guardian reports.
Calum Semple, professor in child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool and co-lead of the study, stressed that the children who died suffered from “profound co-morbidities – not a touch of asthma and not cystic fibrosis”. Regarding children of black ethnicity, reported to be three times more likely to be infected, Semple said “For a black healthy child, there is no risk at all.” Co-author Olivia Swann, clinical lecturer in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of Edinburgh, said “The absolute risk of any child being admitted with COVID is tiny. The absolute risk of them being admitted to critical care is even lower.” The Times reported “All children who died of COVID-19 were already seriously ill.”
In fact, I’ve not been able to find any salient details regarding any deaths in children registered as COVID infected. Last year we heard of a young ‘immunocompromised’ boy but no details have been forthcoming.
If there is no benefit for children in terms of saving lives what’s the risk? That is why trials have to be conducted, and published in peer-reviewed journals. The Oxford/AstraZeneca trial on 16-17 year olds was halted because of the now established risk of throbocytopenia. No-one knows why certain (young) people are susceptible so it is not ethical to proceed before knowing this in case children, with no risk of dying from covid might be susceptible. It is a ‘Phase 2 safety trial’ not a ‘Phase 3 efficacy trial’. It involves 300 young people. It is consequently nowhere near completion. Even if completed, say if hypothetically one in 1,000 children die as a consequence of vaccination this would have a greater chance of not becoming apparent in a study of only 300. It’s too small.
Yet, Health Minister Matt Hancock says "Vaccine is safe and effective for children from the age of 12 upwards.” How can he say this?
Are COVID vaccines safe for children?
All we have to go on is a press release issued by Pfizer, not a published study that has gone through peer-review. This asserts that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, given to 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age in the United States resulted in pain at the injection site (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%), injection site swelling (10.5%), injection site redness (9.5%), nausea (1.1%), malaise (0.5%), and lymphadenopathy (0.3%). It says “Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and not to vaccinate “individuals with known history of a severe allergic reaction””...“Vaccine may not protect all vaccine recipients”… “data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy”….“Data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on the breastfed infant.”
Up to May 26th the total number of yellow card reports of adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine filed by UK GPs who think that a reaction is associated with or due to vaccination is 64,450 with 396 fatalities. 3.8 million people have been given the Pfizer vaccine so this represents one death per 10,000.
But yellow card reports are known to be a fraction of actual adverse reactions. According to the UK Drug Safety Unit in Southampton University 98% of adverse reactions don’t get reported. In the best studies half of adverse reactions don’t get reported. Realistically, we could be looking at 1 death per 5,000 associated with vaccination. This doesn’t mean the death is caused by the vaccine, just associated with it. The Norwegian Medical Association, having completed their examination into 30 deaths in frail, older people and concluded that 10 were likely to be caused by the vaccine, the BMJ reports. Children’s risk of death from vaccination may be much less but how do we know?
Why was the AstraZeneca trial halted?
Why was the AstraZeneca trial halted? The risk of the auto-immune reactions that can occur to some. Apparently, they’ve not seen cases of auto-immune thrombocytopenia, the blood clotting problem, in children but may be worried about the immune phenomenon sometimes seen in vaccinated children that is much like Kawasaki disease. The adult form appears to depend on or is at least associated with PF4 antibodies, but these haven't been looked for yet in children. The NHS website says: ‘Kawasaki disease causes the blood vessels to become inflamed and swollen, which can lead to complications in the blood vessels that supply blood to the heart (coronary arteries). Around 25% of children with Kawasaki disease experience complications with their heart.”
Concerns regarding mRNA vaccines that inject the spike protein to trigger an immune response are growing. “We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” says Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at the University of Guelph in Canada. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” Research obtained by a group of scientists shows the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries and may trigger organ failure.
Are COVID vaccines effective in children?
The only study to date, in Pfizer’s press release, out of 1,129 children vaccinated reported that there were no COVID cases, while out of 1,131 given a placebo there were 18 cases. There is no mention of whether these were just PCR positive, asymptomatic, symptomatic, minor or severe. With 18 cases in 1,131 adolescents that means one in 62 people become infected.
Currently, we have 5,000 out of one million tested being PCR positive, or one in 200. But remember these are people coming forward for a PCR test, many of whom suspect they are infected. In sampling studies by the Office of National Statistics between 1 in 640 (England) and 1 in 1,050 (Wales) test positive. So the Pfizer study was therefore performed in a group of people where COVID-19 infection was rife, as in ten times more risk of infection than is occurring in the UK.
The risk versus benefit for children doesn’t add up
Let’s assume the vaccine is 100% effective. With the current rate of infection 7,000 children would have to be vaccinated for one less infection, which is likely to be minor, not fatal, especially in healthy children.
How many of those 7,000 will experience adverse effects from those that resolve such as fatigue, headaches, muscle pain or chills? Two thirds, according to the Pzifer press release. How many will develop more serious adverse reactions like Kawazaki syndrome or even death? We just don’t know.
According to the chief investigator on the Oxford vaccine trial, Andrew Pollard, a professor of paediatric infection and immunity, “While most children are relatively unaffected by coronavirus and are unlikely to become unwell with the infection, it is important to establish the safety and immune response to the vaccine in children and young people.” This has not been done.
Will Vaccinating Children Produce Herd Immunity?
Since it is clear the risk versus benefit for vaccinated children doesn’t add up then why do it? To achieve herd immunity for the population as a whole. That’s the only logical reason to push for vaccinating children, (other than profit from vaccine sales.) There is this magical, unsubstantiated figure that 80% have to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity and that this is not possible without vaccinating all children.
There are many problems with this logic. Firstly, it assumes that children can be ‘super-spreaders’. That was the concern when schools reopened. What actually happened, according to an article in the Daily Mail was that the infection rate in 15 to 19 year-olds on March 7 – before schools were reopened – stood at 69 per thousand. It jumped to 87 on March 18. This happened primarily because more adolescents were tested. Similar trends were seen for 10 to 14-year-olds (46 to 80) and 5 to 9-year-olds (32 to 60). But the rate fell in every other adult age group over the same period. Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said it suggested that the reopening of schools has yet to trigger the spike in cases that experts have warned would likely happen.
Children carry a much smaller viral load and get over viral infections much quicker. If their vitamin D level is sufficient – very likely in the summer as they play outside (you only need 20 minutes of sun exposure to max vitamin D production) – and they supplement vitamin C, especially upon infection, they are more likely to stay asymptomatic and recover quickly. A study tracking those infected and their social groups reports that an infected but asymptomatic person will infect 1 in 100 contacts and half of those infected will be asymptomatic. A symptomatically infected person will infect 4 out of 100, one of which will be asymptomatic. These numbers are for adults. Most children who become infected are either asymptomatic or mildly infected and recover quickly. Vaccinated people still get infected, and can transmit infection, but for a shorter amount of time due to faster recovery. For younger people the odds of transmission of infection to others is likely to be much smaller.
In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that our children will be spreading infection to the rest of us. Vaccination is not going to save their lives and may reduce their risk of a mild infection. They are highly likely to suffer in the short-term from vaccine side-effects. The risk of serious, debilitating adverse reactions, including death, is unknown. In the US a group of doctors have gone legal and filed a restraining order against the use of COVID vaccine in children.
For these reasons I’d say to Matt Hancock ‘follow the science and keep your hands off our children.’ If you agree please sign this petition created by retired consultant paediatrician Dr Ros Jones, entitled ‘Do not vaccinate children against COVID-19 until Phase 3 trials are complete’. Over 50,000 have signed already but 100,000 are needed to force a debate in parliament.
Also, please don’t pay attention to the bullying techniques that will assert that, unless children are vaccinated, there will be a third wave, or lockdown can’t end. This would be propaganda, not fact.
Latest Covid Deaths - The Facts
Despite reports of cases of PCR positive results going up, and hospitalisations in certain areas in the North, actual deaths in ICUs, based on the last available report from the ICNARC up to June 3rd, and the daily record of the Government up to 9th June remain flat since the end of April. On June 9th 6 deaths were recorded, across the UK with 28 days of a positive PCR test.
The other interesting finding is that, while previously ICU deaths were one seventh of PCR positive deaths, in the last ICNARC report (May 10 – June 3) 33 died, while the total death from those PCR positive within 28 days were 44. This means almost all dying are dying in ICUs.
The rise in infections is attributed to the Delta/Indian variant. The Week reports that of 125 people hospitalised, 65% were unvaccinated, 2.5% had had a double dose and 32.5% had had a single jab.
Blocking Vitamin C has Cost Thousands of Lives
It’s been over a year since the science of vitamin C in relation to covid was presented to EVERY decision maker in Government, SAGE which then became NERVTAG, and is now called RAPIDC19. Public Health England’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) promised to review the evidence in June, but we understand have been told not to. They acknowledged receipt of our review, delivered by Professor Philip Calder from Southampton University in December. NICE, who advise doctors what to do, also acknowledged receipt of the review, delivered by Professor David Smith from Oxford University, in December and have also done nothing. Both NICE and SACN have been kept up to date with recent studies showing benefit.
Jo Churchill, in charge of Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, says “We are continuing to monitor any new, high-quality evidence from clinical trials in the UK and overseas on the effectiveness of vitamin C as an intervention for COVID-19. The Department has noted the findings of the review Vitamin C – An Adjunctive Therapy for Respiratory Infection, Sepsis and COVID-19.” That’s our paper. But noting and monitoring is not acting. The paper includes the now published randomised placebo controlled trial showing 80% less deaths in critically ill covid patients on ventilators. That’s twice the reduction seen in the dexamethasone (steroid) trial.
I responded saying “Regarding critical COVID-19 there are now four intervention trials and three observational trials, all bar one of which have shown benefit. On the basis of the same evidence the Shanghai Medical Association has been recommending intravenous vitamin C, and posting substantially lower mortality, for over a year. Most clinicians using vitamin C, do not consider it ethical, given the existing evidence, to subject their patients to a randomised placebo controlled trial when it is already clear that vitamin C can and is saving lives. Also, vitamin C status can so easily be determined by a urine vitamin C strip, as they have been doing at the Chelsea & Westminster, then giving the amount of vitamin C needed (often 6g) to ‘correct deficiency’. Also a study giving outpatients 8 grams a day of vitamin C showed a statistically significant 70% improved recovery rate.”
Jo Churchill goes on to say: “one of the UK priority clinical trial platforms, REMAP-CAP, is trialling high-dose vitamin C in patients who have been admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19.”
But it isn’t. I replied saying: “As laudable as the aim of the REMAP-CAP vitamin C trial is it was apparently ready to recruit patients last summer, but for a lack of vitamin C supplies. This was bizarre because, several months ago I contacted IV vitamin C suppliers who had no shortage of supplies and one was willing to donate to this trial. ICUs have also informed me that they have had no supplies of intravenous vitamin C.” Now, ICUs tell me, they have supplies but… no patients. As a consequence, we are through the second wave and still not one person in the UK has been recruited and treated in the REMAP-CAP trial.
Jo Churchill’s secretary, Ben Bedlington in charge of ‘Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries’ responded to me saying: “With regard to the use of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19, I am afraid there is nothing more that I can add.”
People ask me all the time ‘surely the Government don't want more people to die?’ I asked a top PR why four commissioned features in national newspapers have been pulled at the last minute. They told me the Government is the major advertiser and has veto. I don't know if this is true but the blanket block of any mention of vitamin C, other than the usual BBC dismissal that ‘it doesn’t work for colds’ is truly weird. By the way, the science is clear that it does work for colds at 6 or more grams a day on first day of infection, reducing duration by 20%, which is more than any anti-viral drug has ever done.
Whether you used 20% shorter infection, or 80% less critical covid deaths, it is hard to see how the proper use of vitamin C, as done in Wuhan where 50 million grams were widely distributed to every infected person, and all health care workers, with critically ill being given intravenous vitamin C between 12 and 24 grams a day, it is realistic to conclude that up to half the people who have died in the UK didn’t need to if treated properly with vitamin C. In ICUs using vitamin C mortality rate averages 5-8%. In UK ICUs the national average is 39%. In Wuhan, since the mass distribution of vitamin C, most ICUs have not had a single covid case since end of April 2020.
On May 29th we took to the streets of London, with hundreds of thousands of others (apparently the drone count was 500,000 – 1% of the UK’s adult population), campaigning for vitamin C for covid to save lives. The BBC didn’t cover it. The Guardian said ‘hundreds of people…’. Is this what George Orwell called ‘thought policing”?
The cost of life-saving vitamin C is less than the cost of doing up the Prime Minister’s flat. The safety of vitamin C, even in high doses, is already established as ‘safer than water’. Virtually all of the evidence points in the same direction of benefit. The only real argument is the size of that benefit, which depends on dose, how long it is given for and how early in infection.
Knowing all this I can only think of only two possible explanations. One is total incompetence, as alluded to by Dominic Cummings, fuelled by a governmental and NHS culture of distrust of vitamins. The other is active censorship. Either way those in charge are responsible for gross negligence that has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people in the UK.
Please support www.vitaminc4covid.com, sign the petition and share with others.