The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), an independent group of experts who advise the UK’s government health departments on immunisations published a report on 16 February stating, ‘JCVI advises a non-urgent offer at two 10mcg doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine to children aged 5 to 11 years of age who are not in a clinical risk group.’
I recently interviewed Dr Tony Hinton, a retired NHS surgeon of 35 years, regarding the JCVI’s recent statement, which I posted on my substack. Dr Hinton found it to be full of contradictions and the CDC data that the JCVI relied upon to be skewed, in comparison to data recorded in a Hong Kong study, yielding significantly different vaccine-related myocarditis rates in children.
The following day, a breaking news story by The New York Times, came to my attention, what it revealed helps explain why the CDC data appears to be so irregular. The article exposed the fact that the CDC (Centre for Disease Control in the US) had been withholding vast amounts of Covid data from the public. It stated: ‘Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected.’
The article went on to quote, Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute, who said, “The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization.”
His bombshell statement helps make a strong case that the US Covid policy (including the vaccine programme) has been governed by politics all along, rather than the science.
Furthermore, the JCVI and the MHRA have relied unquestioningly on Pfizer’s clinical trial data to authorise and recommend the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine comprising of the novel lipid nanoparticle formulation containing nucleoside-modified mRNA.
The same clinical trial data that’s been cast into serious doubt by recent whistle-blowers, like Brook Jackson, the regional director of several of the clinical trial sites used in Pfizer’s pivotal Phase III trial, which the BMJ covered, last November.
The Pfizer and BioNTech funded evaluation report
What’s highly concerning is that the study published in the NEJM (The New England Journal of Medicine) which the JCVI included in their recent report, when evaluating vaccine safety of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in children aged 5-11- was entirely funded by Pfizer and BioNtech, with the authors of the study directly working for either company. It’s also disturbing, how nobody at the JCVI would have sounded the alarm bells of ‘conflict of interest’ but instead chose to remain silent and rely on that far from independent study.
The Pfizer and BioNTech funded report states that ‘Covid-19 vaccines are urgently needed in children younger than 12 years of age’ and of course concludes that the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine is ‘safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in children 5 to 11 years of age.’ The report alarmingly states, ‘Without effective Covid-19 vaccines for this age group, children could potentially become ongoing reservoirs of infection and sources of newly emerging variants.’
In my opinion, for children to be described by Pfizer and BioNTech as ‘ongoing reservoirs of infection’ is offensive and epitomises the way they have been treated for the past two years-including being labelled as ‘super-spreaders.’ There have been several highly credible reports citing evidence, which state otherwise.
The major contradictions of the JCVI report
There were many irregularities of JCVI’s ‘non-urgent offer’ which stood out to Dr Hinton. Firstly, in all his years in medicine, Dr Hinton has never come across the JCVI use that type of language when recommending an immunization. From the beginning of the interview, he said that the JCVI are not recommending the vaccine for this age group – it says it will be an “open non urgent offer to parents.” The term itself exposes the fact that there is no urgent need to offer the vaccination for this age group- so why offer it anyway?
One of the reasons they give for their ‘non urgent offer’ is to prevent ‘a future wave of infection’ whilst making note of the fact that the vaccination of this group ‘is not expected to have an impact on the current wave of Omicron.’
For over a year now, evidence has shown that the COVID-19 vaccines and their boosters, do not prevent people from contracting the virus or prevent transmission. Indeed, Israel rolled out the fourth dose of the Pfizer Vaccine in early January, and since then has experienced skyrocketing Covid-19 cases. So, how would vaccinating young healthy children prevent a future wave of infection? It cannot and it’s unusual that the JCVI would make this claim.
The report importantly states that young children have ‘asymptomatic or mild disease’following infection with SARS-CoV-2 and that ‘children aged 5 to 11 are at the very lowest risk from COVID-19’ which completely renders hollow their non-urgent offer.
The case for natural immunity
Another anomaly that stood out in the report that Dr Hinton highlighted was the JCVI’s admission that ‘over 85% of all children’ would have already contracted SARS-CoV-2, leading to acquired natural immunity. Prima facie, this seems like welcome news, given the relentless dismissal of one of the fundamental principles of immunology by global government health bodies and public health officials- natural immunity. The report goes on to rightfully assume that ‘Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection.’ The JCVI appear to directly contradict themselves as their ‘non-urgent offer’ of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for young healthy children, appears to be based on the threat of a future infection.
In the interview, I mentioned that the JCVI had relied on CDC data (which we now know only a tiny fraction has been released to the public). I read out an extract from their report, ‘In the United States (linked to CDC Covid-19 Vaccine Task Force report) less than 2 cases of vaccine-related myocarditis have been reported per million doses.’
Dr Hinton believed that rate to be much higher. He said “even if it was based on 2 cases of myocarditis per million, given there are 5.6 million 5–11-year-olds in the UK that would give rise to 11 cases of myocarditis, with a possibility 50% death rate over 5 years. Plus, you’re looking at 3 cases of possibly not going to ICU versus 11 cases of vaccine-related myocarditis.”
Dr Hinton spoke about a Hong Kong study that was done which gives a much more accurate picture of vaccine-related myocarditis cases in children.
“From the first dose there were 55 recorded cases per million, from the second dose it jumped to 370 cases per million, so altogether they had 425 cases per million injections. So, for us to vaccinate 5.6 million children in the UK, that would lead to 2380 cases- far higher than what the JCVI say.”
In the interview, I mentioned a recent study published on January 25, 2022, in JAMA(Journal of the American Medical Association) which showed the risk of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) ‘was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of Covid-19 vaccination.’
Since the study in JAMA was published well before the JCVI released their statement, the experts in the group should have been aware of this peer-reviewed study and included it when considering vaccine safety rather than simply relying on a non-peer-reviewed, Pfizer-funded Covid-19 vaccine evaluation report.
Based on the very recent damning evidence against the CDC and the alarming conclusion of the new study in JAMA, the JCVI need to immediately withdraw their statement.
On February 11th, 90 medical professionals forming the group, Children’s Covid Advisory Group (CCVAG) wrote a letter to the government ‘to pause the child Covid vaccine rollout pending results of an investigation into serious safety signals.’
Their letter was ignored by the government and the JCVI. In response, 500 British medical professionals co-signed the original letter and a small group of representatives hand delivered it to the JCVI and the Chief Medical Officer, on February 24th.
Reposted from the author’s substack