The United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency is putting an end to Covid-19 vaccinations for young, healthy children aged 5-to-11 years old.
Any child who turns five after August 2022 can no longer receive a COVID vaccine until they are 12, unless they are “clinically vulnerable.” The U.K.’s Green Book for medical practicioners states:
This one-off programme applies to those aged 5 to 11 years, including those who turn five years of age before the end of August 2022.
The U.K. Green Book’s rationale for ending the program of vaccination for most children 5-11 is refreshing in light of U.S. reportage on the subject:
In February 2022, the JCVI advised a one-off, non-urgent programme to offer vaccination to all children aged five to 11 years of age who are not in a clinical risk group. The immediate benefits of vaccination in this age group are likely to be small because children are at low risk from COVID-19 infection, and by February 2022 almost all children in this age group will already have been infected with COVID-19. Although Omicron infection appears to be particularly mild, and the vaccine induced protection against mild Omicron infection is short lived, the offer is intended to increase and broaden protection against severe COVID-19 in advance of a potential future wave of COVID-19. As this offer is non-urgent, JCVI has recommended that delivery of paediatric non-COVID-19 immunisation programmes across all ages should receive due attention.
“Subject to further clarification, on-going eligibility in 2022/23, after the one off-programme, is expected to be for children in the academic years where children are aged 11 or 12 years,” the Green Book added.
The UKHSA’s decision is spurring outrage for clinicians who have made a cottage industry of scaring parents into getting their kids vaccinated for Covid-19, whether they need it or not. Professor Christina Pagel of University College London condemned the move.
"*" indicates required fields
“JCVI itself considered there to be a benefit to young children to be vaccinated – even if most of them had already been infected,” she said.
“There is also the additional benefit to children of providing additional protection from developing long Covid, missing school during the acute illness and reducing transmission to household members, other children and teachers,” she claimed.
This is false, however. Nature Medicine in May published a report that shows vaccination does not appear to provide nearly the amount of protection against “long Covid” as was previously claimed.
Critically, the Covid vaccines were only 15% effective at preventing “Long Covid.” This analysis was corroborated by Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist who is a medical analyst for Scripps Research.
BTI relative risk and absolute excess burden at 6 months for death, particularly increased for clot-related, lung sequelae pic.twitter.com/em3KgnPxoM
— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) May 25, 2022
“The natural history of post-vaccine breakthrough infections (BTI) in 33,000 people, >13 million controls,” Dr. Topol writes. “Vaccination protection from #LongCovid ~15%, much less than many other studies (~50%).”
Detailed analysis of the study was also provided by Harvard Medical School professor Adam W. Gaffney.
An important new study is out. Baseline findings from the NIH's longitudinal, intramural Long COVID study — perhaps the most detailed, controlled, comprehensive investigation of multiple health metrics in this setting thus far conducted — were just published in @AnnalsIM
— Adam W Gaffney (@awgaffney) May 23, 2022
“First, as you’d expect, most (84%) of those post-COVID had anti-COVID-19 antibodies, and (by design) none of the controls,” Gaffney writes in the thread. “Second, vs controls, those post-COVID group reported significantly more symptoms, e.g. fatigue, shortness of breath, anosmia [loss of smell, ed.], headache, & more.”
“On the other hand, numerous biomarkers showed no difference between those post-COVID and controls, including tests for”:
(1) general inflammation (e.g. CRP)
(2) autoimmunity (e.g. ANA)
(3) clotting abnormality (e.g. d-dimer)
(4) heart inflammation (e.g. troponin)
(5) Kidney function
(6) Liver function
(7) Blood levels
(8) Brain injury (neurofilament light chains)
Furthermore, the Journal of Clinical Medicine in March found that the spike in heart inflammation cases cannot be attributed to Covid-19.
“We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection,” the authors concluded.
The FDA panel’s decision flew in the face of U.S. government data that showed that nearly all children had Covid-19 already; thus, the great majority of children have natural immunity from prior infection. Critically, according to CDC data from February, 74.2% of “children and adolescents had serologic evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, with approximately one third becoming newly seropositive since December 2021.”
Natural immunity has been repeatedly shown to be more robust than vaccinated immunity. Johns Hopkins University found in a landmark study published in January that 99% of unvaccinated people who had Covid infections gained “natural immunity” that did not diminish for at least 650 days.
The U.K.’s decision is a gleam of hope for parents who are not disposed to give their children these mRNA shots being marketed as ‘vaccines.’ If more European nations follow the U.K.’s lead, there will be more pressure on the United States to acknowledge the medical reality that the mRNA Covid shots do not yield significant benefit for most children and pose at least a marginal risk.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.