Citing Myocarditis Data, 30+ Experts Call on UK Regulators to Reassess COVID Vaccines for 12- to 15-Year-Olds

In a letter to the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation, more than 30 politicians, doctors and medical experts said long-term effects from COVID vaccines could compromise the life expectancy of the country’s children.

Dozens of medical professors, heads of scientific organizations, MP’s and experts in immunology asked UK regulators to overhaul the country’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout for 12- to 15-year-olds. Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Dozens of medical professors, heads of scientific organizations, MP’s and experts in immunology asked UK regulators to overhaul the country’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout for 12- to 15-year-olds based on new data showing a high risk of myocarditis in that age group.

In an open letter to members of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation (JCVI), the experts said data prove that “for males under 40, risk of myocarditis was up to 14 times higher after vaccination than after infection” and the risk of myocarditis in young men and boys increased “significantly after a second dose of the vaccine.”

They also argued the vaccines are less effective “at stemming the transmission of Omicron compared to Delta” and therefore there may be few advantages to exposing young people to the potential increased risks.

The experts wrote that our children “have 50 or more years of healthy life expectancy ahead of them that could be compromised by long-term vaccine harms.”

“It is crucial that, if we are to proceed with the mass double vaccination of healthy children, we are absolutely certain that this policy will do more good than harm. Furthermore, we need to give consideration to what precedent is being set for triple or even continuous and regular vaccination for this age group.”

The concerned professionals warned the medical authorities against taking hasty action that could cause long-term harm:

“The risk and benefit calculations made by the JCVI and the chief medical officers were based on less complete data on both the harms and benefits of vaccinating children compared to the evidence now available.

“Four months later, we are in a very different position, with the virulent Delta variant almost completely replaced by the milder Omicron variant. Additionally, society now has a higher level of robust immunity from natural infection than it had when teenage vaccination was approved.”

On September 3, 2021 the JCVI advised against recommending the mass vaccination of healthy 12-15-year-olds against Covid-19. The principal reason given for this was that, while the known benefits and harms from vaccination to this age group were both very small, the Committee was concerned about the unknown potential harms of the new vaccine, particularly the long-term and possibly serious risks of myocarditis.

The JCVI estimated that for every one million 12-15-year-olds vaccinated with two doses, 2.54 ICU admissions would be avoided and up to 51 cases of myocarditis caused. Subsequently, the risk of myocarditis and other adverse events has been shown to be greater than believed by the JCVI at the time.

The Government referred the matter to the CMO, asking him to consider the ‘wider benefits’ to children of vaccination. On September 13, 2021, Professor Chris Whitty recommended that one dose of the vaccine be given to healthy 12-15-year-olds on the basis that it would possibly provide “marginal benefits,” specifically in reducing the time spent out of school as a result of Covid infection.

This was calculated as a saving of, on average, 15 mins of education per child. (This estimate did not take into account disruption even from short-term vaccine side effects and is also based on assumptions about the level of protection one dose of the vaccine gives against infection which has proved to be over-optimistic.)

The risk and benefit calculations made by the JCVI and the CMO were based on less complete data on both the harms and benefits of vaccinating children compared to the evidence now available. Four months later, we are in a very different position, with the virulent Delta variant almost completely replaced by the milder Omicron variant. Additionally, society now has a higher level of robust immunity from natural infection than it had when teenage vaccination was approved.

We have seen in recent weeks that Omicron is significantly more infectious than Delta (based on secondary attack rates, it was originally twice as transmissible as Delta, but this has declined to 1.3 times as transmissible as naturally acquired variant-specific immunity to it has risen). Vaccines are also far less effective at stemming the transmission of Omicron, compared to Delta (protection appears to fall to zero, three months after vaccination).

More data have emerged about the frequency of harmful side effects of Covid vaccination. One study found that for males under 40, risk of myocarditis was up to 14 times higher after vaccination than after infection (101 cases after the Moderna second dose, compared to 7 cases after infection).

It is particularly important to note that the risks of myocarditis in young men and boys seem to increase significantly after a second dose of the vaccine — which is why Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty initially recommended just one dose be given to 12- 15-year-olds — and yet we are now offering second doses to children, despite the evidence of risk growing.

It therefore seems clear that the risk-to-benefit ratio for child Covid vaccination has worsened since September. The risks of adverse events (including but not limited to myocarditis) increase as more doses are given, and any advantages are reduced as vaccine effectiveness in suppressing Omicron transmission decreases (especially given widespread natural immunity).

Given that any potential benefits of vaccinating children were calculated to be marginal at best in the first place, we suspect that this margin has not only evaporated but actually reversed in light of the characteristics of the new and dominant Omicron variant and the increase in robust and durable naturally-acquired immunity.

Furthermore, the negligible risks of Covid infection to children have become even more nugatory if, as it appears, Omicron is associated with less severe disease, whereas the benefits of natural infection (rather than vaccination) in terms of longer-lasting immunity are becoming more clear.

Unlike the elderly and clinically vulnerable population — for whom the potentially life-saving benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh any risks from vaccination — our children face no such threat from COVID-19 yet have 50 or more years of healthy life expectancy ahead of them that could be compromised by long-term vaccine harms.

It is crucial that, if we are to proceed with the mass double vaccination of healthy children, we are absolutely certain that this policy will do more good than harm. Furthermore, we need to give consideration to what precedent is being set for triple or even continuous and regular vaccination for this age group.

We believe that the benefit to risk ratio of child vaccination should be reassessed in light of the Omicron variant and new evidence on both vaccine harms and superior natural immunity.

We urge the JCVI to review this new evidence and provide updated advice to the Government with regards to the mass vaccination of healthy 12- 15-year-olds.

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

Dr Iona Heath, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners (2009 to 2012)

Professor Allyson Pollock, Clinical Professor of Public Health, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University

Dr Roland Salmon, MRCGP, FFPH, former Director of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (Wales)

The JCVI estimated that for every one million 12-15-year-olds vaccinated with two doses, 2.54 ICU admissions would be avoided and up to 51 cases of myocarditis caused.

Subsequently, the risk of myocarditis and other adverse events has been shown to be greater than believed by the JCVI at the time.

Great Barrington Declaration:

https://gbdeclaration.org

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.

Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.