The following articles provide a framework for examining the scientific rationale behind advocating for vaccination particularly for advocating the vaccination of children and particularly for advocating coercive measures to promote their widespread use.
Government Guidance for Parents on Vaccination for Children aged 5 to 11:
“What is COVID-19 or coronavirus?COVID-19 is a very infectious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Most children who get COVID-19 have no symptoms. Those that do, have mild symptoms like a bad cold. A few children and young people will get very poorly and have to go to hospital.”
A guide for parents of children aged 5 to 11 years of age at high risk
From this information put out by the government itself I struggle to see any justification for offering covid vaccines to anyone under 18.
Evaluating Vaccination Risks to Children:
“Abstract:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs 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.“
JCVI Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Vaccination:
“The benefits and risks from COVID-19 vaccination in children [5-11] and young people[12 -17] are finely balanced largely because the risks associated with SARS-CoV2 infection are very low. “
and
“At the current time, JCVI considers the balance of potential benefits and harms is in favour of offering vaccination to children aged 5 to 11 years who are in a clinical risk group. Children aged 5 to 11 year old who are not in a clinical risk group but are household contacts of a immunosuppressed individual (of any age) should also be offered COVID-19 vaccination on the understanding that the main indication for vaccination is to indirectly increase protection of the person who is immunosuppressed.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-update-on-advice-for-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-and-young-people-22-december-2021
How many parents who are having their children and teenagers vaccinated know that their risks of serious harm from covid are known to be negligible? Why is the UK government promoting vaccination including boosters to children over 12 when they admit that they are awaiting data for futher advice?
From an open letter to the MHRA regarding child death data:
“The JCVI previously declined to recommend that the Covid-19 vaccines be administered to healthy 12-15 year olds as the balance of benefit to risk was only marginal at best in the face of the very low risk to children of serious illness or death from Covid-19 disease, the considerable uncertainty of the potential harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, the known signals of harms from the vaccines already identified and the absence of complete and long term safety data in circumstances where the vaccines have been rapidly brought to market, long before the normal phase III clinical trials used to assess safety have been completed. On 3 September 2021 the JCVI said:
https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-to-the-mhra-regarding-child-death-data/
“Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months.”
The JCVI’s decision was overturned by the four chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not because they found there was a health benefit to children in respect of the Covid-19 vaccines but because, based on modelling analyses, they concluded that the Covid-19 vaccines were likely to reduce school absences. Notwithstanding that theoretically preventing a few days of absence for mild, cold-like symptoms could never reasonably be regarded as justification for administering vaccines with unknown long-term effects, this was the justification given for the vaccination of school-age children. Since then, data must have been obtainable and should have been collected and reviewed to determine whether vaccinations have in fact reduced school absences, and the extent to which absences have occurred by reason of (a) administration of the vaccination program and (b) adverse reactions to the vaccines.”
and
“In light of the increase in deaths in young males and the known safety concerns, an investigation must be conducted. It is not suggested that the observed increase in mortality proves that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing death, whether via myocarditis or some other mechanism, but a connection cannot be excluded. The potential signal is strong enough that urgent investigations should commence immediately to rule out that possibility. Each recipient of this letter has a duty to investigate. It would be a grave dereliction of duty not to do so.”
On Covid, Vaccinations and Immunocompromised Children:
“This study shows SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred in immunocompromised children and young people with no increased risk of severe disease. No children died.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016344532100548X
On Immune Suppression Caused by Covid Vaccination:
“In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike naturalinfection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to humanhealth. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containingspike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shownto have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liverdisease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reportsin the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357994624_Innate_Immune_Suppression_by_SARS-CoV-2_mRNA_Vaccinations_The_role_of_G-quadruplexes_exosomes_and_microRNAs
Why is Data From Vaccine Trials Unavailable to Independent Scientists/Researchers?
“Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.”
and
“The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102
If data from scientific trials is not available to independent scientists and researchers then ‘the science’ cannot be known and it seems fraudulent for governments to claim that they are ‘following the science’.
Natural vs Vaccine Induced Immunity:
“Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full
There are further links to articles on natural vs vaccine induced immunity at The Epoch Times website.
I copied just some of them because Epoch Times requires getting a temporary subscription in order to read its articles.
https://rupress.org/jem/article/218/5/e20202617/211835/Highly-functional-virus-specific-cellular-immune
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1.full
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13520
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.12.443888v1
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/good-news-mild-covid-19-induces-lasting-antibody-protection/
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd7728
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.03.367391v2
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362088/
https://unherd.com/2020/06/karl-friston-up-to-80-not-even-susceptible-to-covid-19/
The Vaccinated as a Source of Transmission
“Many decision makers assumethat the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. Itappears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated populationas a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356414443_The_epidemiological_relevance_of_the_COVID-19-vaccinated_population_is_increasing
I would say that this is a minimal interpretation of the data that Kampf presents. It appears that the susceptibility of the vaccinated to covid infection is increasing and has increased over time to a point where it is not equivalent to that of the unvaccinated. The article says nothing about severity of illness but it seems that there is no justification, on grounds of infectiousness, for treating the unvaccinated differently from the vaccinated.