Gambling With the Health of 5-Year-Old Children

Children receive a dose of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty vaccine for children at the children's section of the Lanxess Arena vaccination center in Cologne, Germany, on Dec. 18, 2021. (Andreas Rentz/Getty Images)

Commentary

As we near the end of 2021, most people would have expected that the spectre of COVID-19 would have receded and that normal life would have reasserted itself.

However, the reality is that the constant mutation of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus and the responses of governments ensure that the pandemic is very much alive, thriving, and threatening our way of life.

For example, the obsession with vaccination and reaching ludicrous levels of vaccination, which must be met to open the borders of Australian states, have kept the disease constantly in the news.

One recent, very concerning development is the decision of the Australian government to make the Pfizer vaccine available to 5-years old children. This is a disturbing development, which reasonable people, especially parents, need to consider carefully for many reasons.

Indeed, following the adoption by the federal government of recommendations from the Australian Technical Advisory Group (ATAGI), the government has announced that the COVID-19 vaccination program will be extended to all children aged 5 to 11 from Jan. 10, 2022.

A woman holds a young child outside the entrance to the newly opened South Western Sydney Vaccination Centre at Macquarie Fields in Sydney, Australia, on July 26, 2021. (Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images)

As stated on the website of the Department of Health, all children aged 5 to 11 “will receive 2 doses of the vaccine, 8 weeks apart. The children’s dose is one-third of the dose for people aged 12 years and over.” The website reassures parents that the TGA’s provisional approval “was based on a careful evaluation of available data to support its safety and efficacy among this age group” and that research reveals that “the Pfizer vaccine is up to 91 percent effective in children.”

However, the reassurance is quite problematic because a study, conducted by King’s College London scientists, has firmly concluded that the overall risk of children becoming severely ill or dying of COVID-19 is “extremely low.”

As a result, the United Kingdom (UK) government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has refused to endorse COVID-19 vaccination for children under the age of 18, stating that the benefit to them of receiving the novel vaccine is “virtually zero,” whereas the already-known risk of serious harms is “not negligible.”

On July 19, 2021, JCVI officially announced it was advising the UK government against the mass rollout of these novel vaccines to healthy children under the age of 18. “At this time,” the statement concludes: “JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.”

Just one known serious potential risk, or adverse effect of these novel vaccines, is that of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart. Myocarditis has a high rate of progressing to heart failure and is one of the reasons some younger people end up needing heart transplants.

A recently published peer-reviewed paper produced by pharmacology and toxicology professors has examined these issues related to COVID-19 vaccinations for children. It concluded:

“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation versus those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”

So, given the already known potential harms of the novel vaccines, of which myocarditis is just one, and the entirely unknown potential long-term adverse effects which may come to light only after many years, the decision of the Australian government to seek to vaccinate everyone, including small children, regardless of age or health conditions, is plainly wrong and not supported by scientific evidence.

A child is seen with a placard placed on her by her mother at an anti-vaccination rally in Sydney, Australia, on Feb. 20, 2021. (Brook Mitchell/Getty Images)

This is a political decision, not a medical one. Nor is it moral or ethical, because there are very serious risks attached to any new drug and COVID-19 vaccines have limited short-term and no long-term safety data.

As an article from the British Medical Journal explains: “From a public health standpoint, it makes poor sense to impose vaccine side-effects on people at minimal risk of severe COVID-19. The argument that it protects others is weak or contrary to evidence. This conclusion suggests a policy of targeting vaccination to those at highest risk, allowing broader post-infection immunity to provide community protection.”

Australia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Children, which entered into force on Sept. 2, 1990.

Article 24(1) relevantly stipulates that ratifying countries “recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.” While this provision is commendable, Article 24(2)(e) requires that “all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health ....”

It is precisely the lack of sufficient and reliable information on the long-term impact of the health of children that results in parents’ reluctance to vaccinate their children.

Indeed, the conclusions reached by the King’s College scientists encourages society to be cautious when it comes to making health decisions—especially for vulnerable very young children—which in the long run, may have adverse consequences for their health and future.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.