Inside the People’s Vaccine Inquiry – Part four [Article from 13/2/25]

All this week we have been publishing the key papers presented at The People’s Vaccine Inquiry press conference on Tuesday of last week. On Monday Dr Jonathan Engler explained its purpose in view of Lady Hallett’s disgraceful refusal to honestly address the extent and cause of vaccine injury. On Tuesday Dr Elizabeth Evans shone her torch on Hallett’s total disregard for medical ethics accompanying the vaccines’ authorisation and roll-out. The third paper, delivered by consultant pathologist Dr Clare Craig, focused not on what was said at the Hallett Inquiry about vaccine ‘safety and efficacy’ but on what was not said. Today retired paediatrician Dr Ros Jones reports on the indefensible folly of the covid vaccine roll-out for children that Hallett has also failed to address.

I’M ROS Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician, and I am here on behalf of over 200 experienced health professionals and academics. We’ve sent numerous letters to the regulators and politicians about the folly of covid vaccines for children, most reported by TCW.* We, like others here, were asked for a detailed witness statement which we provided, even agreeing to it being shared with one of their ‘experts’. When we were told we wouldn’t be called, we were nevertheless thanked and told our statements had been very useful to the Inquiry team in their deliberations.

However, nothing we provided was used at all. We were simply ascribed to the ‘misinformation brigade’. A propos of which, our first fully referenced letter with all our names was sent by Chris Whitty’s department to the Counter Disinformation Unit, who previously monitored online child pornography & terrorism! [Ed’s note: In fact a press release published on March 30 2020 announced that the Government was cracking down on ‘spread of false coronavirus information online’, that specialist units ‘are operating to combat misinformation about coronavirus’ and that ‘five to ten incidents are being identified and tackled each day‘.]

Following on from Dr Evans [the previous speaker], firstly the ethics:

It was very clear that whatever bug was doing the rounds in spring 2020, it did not affect children to any significant degree, yet the government measures caused disproportionate harm. It wasn’t just the school closures, it was the testing and masking and the ‘don’t kill your granny’ messaging. And parents saw first-hand the harms of lockdowns. So when the vaccines were presented as the only route back to normal, parents were not immune from the messaging.

The risk/benefit balance is widely variable by age so a one-size-fits-all was never right. Matt Hancock was absolutely clear this was an adult vaccine; Kate Bingham, chair of the Vaccine Taskforce, went further to say it was for over-50s with comorbidities. Professor Lim, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in his evidence confirmed that the phase 1 roll-out was expected to cover 99 per cent of the mortality from Covid-19. Yet none questioned why the vaccine juggernaut seemed to be unstoppable.

So that brings me to the approval process. MHRA authorised the use of Pfizer for 12-15s on the basis of 1131 vaccinated children followed for two months. You don’t need to be a medic to know that is not a measure of safety. Yet Kate Bingham said the studies were large! The Medicines Health products and Regulatory Authority (MHRA) only checked data provided by Pfizer. They then passed the baton to the JCVI.

The Moral and Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG), a multifaith and ethics group set up in 2019, asked specifically to be involved in discussions re children’s vaccine but their planned meeting in June was cancelled as they were told there were no plans to vaccinate kids. In fairness, JCVI meeting minutes show they were worried – they were looking at myocarditis reports from Israel and the US. And they said NO, not for healthy under-18s. But 48 hours later they held an emergency meeting at the request of Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to ‘reconsider their decision’. Why was Chris Whitty not questioned about this? Or about the CMO’s decision that this would help keep children in school and hence be good for mental health? He admitted their calculations (it worked out at 15 mins per child) allowed no time out of class for the vaccination procedure, let alone for any adverse effects. 

Turning to myocarditis, this has been acknowledged and added to the patient information leaflet, but their so-called expert misquoted the Oxford study, saying it showed more myocarditis with covid than with the vaccine (as stated in the conclusion sentence of their abstract) but even the results section of the abstract actually reported that for males under 40, myocarditis was six times more likely after vaccination than after infection. Again the MHRA were never pinned down as to why they didn’t give more detail of rates by age to enable informed consent.

Read More – Inside the People’s Vaccine Inquiry – Part 4 [Article from 13/2/25]