A group of 76 physicians have penned an open letter to Her Majesty’s government warning against following in the footsteps of the United States, whose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months.
The letter, posted by world-renowned scientist Dr. Robert Malone, began by saying that the “balance of benefit and risk” in administering the vaccine to small children is “totally inappropriate”, citing the very low risk and very high immunity young children have.
Then the physicians attacked Pfizer’s documentation used to convince the FDA to allow small children to be vaccinated.
To begin with, “the protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.”
Second, no statistical significance was found between the placebo groups and vaccinated groups, and the results were based on only three participants in the younger age group, and seven in the 2-4-year-olds.
Third, the calculated vaccine efficacy is only 15%.
The letter also added that in the immunogenicity studies against Omicron, only 66 children were tested a full month after the third dose.
“It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children,” wrote the physicians. They highlighted other gaps in Pfizer’s research, and noted that countries like Sweden, Holland and Norway are not injecting small children who have had COVID-19.
The meticulously sourced letter cited several studies and data to build a case based on a) the extremely low risk from COVID-19 in young children; b) the vaccine’s low efficacy; c) the potential harms of the vaccines, drawing data from Pfizer’s own study; d) the lack of informed consent which “borders on misinformation”; and e) the effect on public confidence when the government pushes a COVID-19 vaccine instead of those “against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles.”
“Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.”
Furthermore, the “poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer” risks undermining public confidence in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry.
The physicians also took a swipe at the vaccine for older children:
“In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.”
“For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses,” the letter concluded. “Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.”