U.K. Approves Pfizer Covid Vaccine for Babies Despite Study Showing 1 in 500 Hospitalised With Side-Effects

Pfizer’s Covid vaccine has been authorised in the U.K. for infants aged six months to four years-old, the medicines regulator confirmed today. The Mail has more.

Covid vaccines were today approved for babies in Britain, in a move likely to spark huge controversy. Regulators gave the green light for all infants older than six months to get a special, low-dose formulation of Pfizer’s jab. 

Its decision opens the door for No. 10’s vaccine advisers to choose whether under-5s should be jabbed as part of the U.K.’s vaccination strategy.

Authorities have so far held out on recommending jabs for infants due to concerns that the benefits don’t outweigh any potential risks. Children rarely get seriously ill with the coronavirus, and the majority are thought to have already been infected.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which polices the safety of drugs used in the U.K., made the decision after reviewing data from an ongoing trial.

More than 4,500 infants were given a small 3 microgram dose of the vaccine. For comparison, adults in Britain get a dose 10 times stronger. Older children, who are already allowed to be vaccinated in the UK, get given a dose of up to 10 micrograms. 

Lower doses are given to children to avoid complications, such as myocarditis – the rare condition that spooked health chiefs early on in the pandemic. 

The jab is given as three injections in the upper arm, with the first two doses given three weeks apart. A third dose is administered at least two months after the second.

The MHRA said the jab triggered common side effects “in-keeping with what can be anticipated from a vaccine in this age group”.

The Commission on Human Medicines – a committee within the MHRA – endorsed approving the vaccine, after reviewing the evidence.

A separate Government group, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, will decide under what circumstances it is dished out.

This could include a list of specific conditions that make children vulnerable to Covid, such as type 1 diabetes or sickle cell disease.

Covid vaccines for children in Briton have so far been incredibly unpopular.

The latest Government data on vaccine uptake shows only 6% of people aged between five to 11 in England have had two doses of a Covid vaccine.

Scores of countries, including the US, China and Israel, already offer vaccines to kids under five, despite huge backlash over the moves. U.S. officials rolled out this version of Pfizer’s shot for the same age group earlier this year. And EU regulators also endorsed the use of Covid vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna for under-5s.

This is madness, obviously, and it is a relief to hear that the JCVI is not likely to follow through on the MHRA’s approval, and also that children’s Covid vaccines are proving so unpopular. The Covid mortality rate in under-20s is one in 300,000, according to the latest studies, and will be lower still in under-5s. Furthermore, that figure includes those with underlying conditions, and the mortality rate in healthy infants will be even lower – basically zero. Up to June 2021, just four children in the U.K. and Ireland aged under 11 had died with Covid; most children who died (nine out of 11 – seven older children also died) had pre-existing conditions. This is not a disease for which children need a vaccine, and certainly not an experimental vaccine with a lamentable safety profile.

On the other hand, the one small mercy is that the dose approved is 3 μg – in the study which found nearly one in 500 small children hospitalised with a serious adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine, all of the serious reactions were in the higher dose cohorts. That means that at this lower dosage the current evidence (albeit in a study with a relatively small sample) is that it is not as dangerous as at higher dosages. However, that study only followed up after the first dose. The MHRA approval is for three doses, and the cumulative impact is unknown.

As I say, small mercies.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
huxleypiggles
3 years ago

Jesus Christ!

(Forgive me.)

GroundhogDayAgain
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Don’t worry. He’s renowned for that…

The Dogman
The Dogman
3 years ago

Sorry but there is a typo here: “The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which polices the safety of drugs used in the U.K., made the decision after reviewing data from an ongoing trial.” According to the MHRA they are enablers, not regulators. Of course, being 86% funded by the companies they are enabling may have an influence.

amanuensis
3 years ago
Reply to  The Dogman

Ordinarily there’s no such thing as approval based on results from an ongoing trial — they wait until the trial has ended. That way you get information on all of the aspects, including longer term problems.

It is worthy of note that a fair number of vaccines are only identified as problematic after some time has passed (due to the complex nature of the immune response).

Ivan the Terrible
Ivan the Terrible
3 years ago
Reply to  The Dogman

Please does anyone have a source for this which is beyond doubt, eg. Government or MHRA statement? I doubt I had had the vaccine, which has done me ongoing harm, had I known this and I do not think many people know this even now. I’d like to be able to have such a source which I can show others.

Chris P
Chris P
3 years ago

Regarding ‘enablers’ there is a talk from June Raine herself: –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQfzTqPUm4

Funding of MHRA there is an article in BMJ referred to be Dr Aseem Malhotra: –

https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1564319957973868545

On page 9 of the linked Government report is the following: –

  • Medicines regulation is funded entirely from fees. In setting its fees the Agency takes account of full cost recovery rules as set out in HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/902328/MHRA_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2020.pdf

Ivan the Terrible
Ivan the Terrible
3 years ago

Thank you very much. Plenty for me to get my teeth into and share with others.

TimVis
TimVis
3 years ago

Like the decision to approve the vaccine for pregnant women, this approval is so far beyond careless. It calls into question their purpose, existence, and past decisions.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  TimVis

This decision confirms a deliberate intention to harm. There are no questions to ask. A wealth of worldwide data confirms that babies and children are at zero risk from the C1984 so this decision is clear evidence of malice aforethought. There are no excuses, no mitigating circumstances and NO indemnities for the people making this decision. They are guilty of murder because as sure as eggs are eggs children will die, sooner or later and very many will suffer life changing injuries.

We are looking at crimes against humanity.

Please, not the children.

jburns75
jburns75
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

In a sense, the probability that the decision is the result of existing in a collective echo chamber – semi-consciously constructed to avoid needing to take responsibility for previous bad decisions – is more worrying.

At least when people cause deliberate harm, there is no way for them to avoid acknowledging the consequences of their actions.

When harm is incidental, people can go to the ends of the earth, including forming a cult-like group mentality, to shield themselves from awareness of those consequences. It allows them to make the same mistakes over again, even in the face of catastrophe.

The more educated they are, the more capable they’ll be in building these psychological defences.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  jburns75

I seriously doubt that none of the protagonists know that what they are doing is very wrong. I think the criteria for an insanity plea are a lot higher.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago

a move likely to spark huge controversy”

Not sure controversy is the right word. It’s simply satanic.

FerdIII
3 years ago

Stabbing a baby with poisons can have effects later on – as with the MMR stab and autism and encephaly. But these Satanists don’t care and no one tracks the health of stabbinated babies vs the unstabbinated. It might take years for the deleterious health effects to manifest themselves. For what? A 0.00% death rate amongst the newborn for Rona? Sick, perverted, evil, twisted, demonic…

MikeAustin
3 years ago

Madness? Or evil?

TJN
TJN
3 years ago
Reply to  MikeAustin

Indeed, Will uses the wrong word there. It’s pure unadulterated evil.

Jabba the Hut
Jabba the Hut
3 years ago

I’m going to take up one of those job vacancies at the MHRA, with the Pfizer funded pension and benefits I might be able to pay my gas bill.

Jabba the Hut
Jabba the Hut
3 years ago
Reply to  Jabba the Hut

I’d be perfect I’m incompetent and know f**ck all about medicines.

hicksyalex
hicksyalex
3 years ago

Petition: Launch a Public Inquiry into the approval process for covid-19 vaccines https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628165
#MHRAFromWatchdogToEnabler
Write to your MP too https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-wRT3hVn1c5TBEILhX6Ddrx3ixBWQ7WKsRak8pgHMCM/edit?usp=drivesdk

JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
3 years ago

It is impossible for me to believe that there is any reason behind this decision other than to deliberately cause harm. Three years in, we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the very young are at zero risk, including those with some type of underlying condition. In addition, we can be pretty certain that all children over the age of 1 or so at this point in time have probably already been exposed to the lurgy and already have antibodies.

What is not known is what LNPs and mrna (no matter how small the dose) could do to a developing immune system – a concoction that is set up to evade and fool a mature immune system.

What is known is that the risk of myocarditis increases with each subsequent poke in teenagers and young adults, I can only assume the same applies for children.

Heinous.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago

I make no apologies for saying that any parent who volunteers to have their baby child injected with this not-a-vaccine should be committed to an asylum with their child put up for adoption.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago

Those involved on the approval process – those applying for it and those doing the approving – must surely be guilty of some fairly serious crimes.

None of them seriously believe this is of benefit, so the motivation (apart from greed) has to be that NOT approving them would leave them open to people doubting their safety. That has always been the reason most obvious to me why they felt they needed to vax the healthy and kids and pregnant mothers, so that there could be no room for anyone to start having doubts. If this is truly the reason then the crime is more heinous because it’s a crime committed solely to cover up an earlier crime.

Judy Watson
Judy Watson
3 years ago

No need to apolgise – I am in total agreement with you.

Hugh
Hugh
3 years ago

Yes, this government seem to like killing children.

jburns75
jburns75
3 years ago

The alternative to granting approval is to accept mounting evidence that their past decisions might have caused the deaths of thousands of younger people who were at as much risk from Covid as from a cold. Even reliable fatality figures for the elderly are worthless due to confounding factors in counting ‘of Covid’ deaths, including use of ventilators, accidental or deliberate euthanasia with sedatives, infection from other pathogens, pre-existing health conditions, and possibly immuno-compromising effects of the vaccine itself.

We know that motivation to act or take responsibility for past actions is diluted in a group, and that people will go out of their way to avoid responsibility for stupid and harmful decisions they might have been a part of, so it’s predictable that the official response is to double down on them, over and over again.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  jburns75

It’s called covering up a crime.

JohnK
3 years ago
Reply to  jburns75

Their decision could be part of their preparation for the Inquiry, in a defensive fashion.

ebygum
3 years ago

Just take this in…..an EXPERIMENTAL medical intervention, that has no medium or long term safety trials, and whose short term trials don’t show ANY benefit, but which has so many adverse reactions that the Government instituted reporting systems in every country which has them are ‘off the charts…’
….and all for a supposed virus which presents exactly like a mild cold in children….

If someone can make that work in their heads other than madness, evil, pursuit of power and filthy lucre, then explain it to me …..?

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

Pfizer obviously wants its product to become part of the so-called routine childhood vaccinations and the MHRA is certainly glad to enable that, enabler that it considers itself to be. This all just about milking the franchise to get every last drop out of it.

One should, of course, regard Kill a few children in the name of profit! as evil. But that’s not an evil according to the woke playbook. Sacrificing other people for the greater good is always acceptable.

Mogwai
3 years ago
Reply to  ebygum

Except it’s not really experimental is it? Not strictly speaking anyway. I agree with Dr James Hill in his assessment here, in that calling them ”experimental” is playing into the PsyOp; “Experiments testing any classified weapon system are always performed, just in secret. This means pathogenic effects of the Covid spike protein in mammals, including non-human primates and quite possibly humans, were well determined before the jabs launched. Don’t assume because CNN and MSNBC didn’t tell you about it, it didn’t happen. In other words, the perpetrators have done the experiments and know what to expect.” All of the awful outcomes we’ve been seeing reported were anticipated/known, as that infamous slide in a presentation ( CDC? Can’t remember now but it went viral ) showed, and was skipped over and not explained, curiously. We know the regulators don’t regulate because these bioweapons are being deployed on the authority of the HHS secretary ( see Katherine Watt substack ) and we know that they want to eliminate the ‘control group’ by whatever means, although it’s a bit late for that if you ask me as we can see just how harmful and ineffective these things are as there’s an abundance of… Read more »

Mogwai
3 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

It was the FDA, not the CDC slide, from Oct 2020. The evil ones knew exactly what to expect and these things are not going anywhere;

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=364942

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

the perpetrators have done the experiments and know what to expect.”

Or as I have frequently written on here, the injections were brewed to a recipe and the brewers knew exactly what the outcomes would be.

they want to harm and kill us and it’s working. As Mike Yeadon always said, try and come up with a benign explanation for any of this, because nobody can.”

Exactly.

Terrific post Mogs.

Freddy Boy
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

👍

Mogwai
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Cheers huxtable 🙂 Well they’re covering all bases aren’t they? I mean, anybody would think this is a military operation…🤔 But seriously, we know that DARPA have been working on gene therapies for at least 10 years, and that’s before we mention all of the nanotech, cyborg-making weirdness that they’re developing, as I’ve previously shared on here. They’re getting to babies in utero by jabbing the mothers, they’re getting to <6 months babies via breast milk, or from shedding if the mother is vaxxed and now they can jab 6 month old and over. The entire age range of the human lifespan is covered. And that above slide from the FDA, prior to the roll-out proves they knew exactly what to expect, because the “experiment” and research had already been done, over many years. And now they’ve got the mRNA platform established they’re gonna just keep rolling out more and more variations of the death shot. We know about the 20-valent flu Mega Jab. I’ve read Modern and Pfizer are currently developing a mRNA jab for shingles…God knows what else is in the pipeline we’re not yet aware of. And going by Bourla’s reticence in answering *proper*, not staged questions… Read more »

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Unless people wake up, Net Zero will arrive by 2050 but it won’t be the Net Zero the sheeple are expecting.

GroundhogDayAgain
3 years ago

And so our medical regulator turns into a drug pusher.

To me, the current jab is simply a ‘gateway drug’. Once mRNA was approved as a concept, people stopped caring about the PAYLOAD, which can be tweaked by an “app”, based on a programmable sequence, but somehow this ‘dum-dum’ carries the same levels of confidence by our (so called) regulators.

To me this is like a rifle being approved because it fires nerf-rounds. Next come the high-velocity rounds, but we “know” the rifle is safe, since the nerf-rounds killed only a few people.

I’ve never been more glad to have resisted the onslaught and to still be unjabbed. Not planning on caving. Ever!

WyrdWoman
3 years ago

Can we find out the names of the people who were on the committee making that decision? Just so we know.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  WyrdWoman

Seconded.

Freddy Boy
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Thirded .

WyrdWoman
3 years ago
Reply to  Freddy Boy

Its going to be members of one of the relevant groups listed here, not all meeting dates are published (long page, keep scrolling):

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/commission-on-human-medicines/about/membership

As a general observation – there are a lot of very highly qualified people listed here who signed up to ‘do no harm’ but are now causing untold harm to countless others. Ethical standards being sold to the highest bidder, perhaps?

Judy Watson
Judy Watson
3 years ago

Disgraceful and deplorable. This just goes to show that the MHRA are not doing their job properly. Also the JCVI.

The big question is why?????

Any parent who subjects their child to this jab is, in my opinion, guilty of child cruelty.

Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Watson

It’s the same in Australia.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) admits that children are at low risk of Covid, but recommends jabbing children anyway.
Why?
See my email to the ATAGI Chair, Nigel Crawford: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/why-does-atagi-recommend-covid-19-mrna-injections-for-all-children-aged-5-to-11-years.pdf

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Elizabeth Hart

Good to have another voice from Australia. Welcome.

Pilla
Pilla
3 years ago

I find this so unutterably evil that it’s difficult to believe that humans can do this to children. But, of course, in this fallen world, we know that they can (viz child abuse, paedophilia, etc). We need Jesus to return! God help us!

DevonBlueBoy
DevonBlueBoy
3 years ago

June Raine and her bunch of enablers make King Herod look like Father Christmas.

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
3 years ago

I wouldn’t worry. No parents in their right minds would risk their children on an untrialled vaccine. More warehouses full of unused gunk.

Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago
Reply to  Covid-1984

According to current Australian government jab statistics 1,868,357 children aged 5-15 years have been double jabbed…
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/vaccination-numbers-and-statistics

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Elizabeth Hart

Oh hell no.

RTSC
RTSC
3 years ago

My adult sons had all their childhood innoculations in the late 80s/early ’90s. Despite the controversy about the MMR jab at the time, they still had it. If I had my time over, I’d be far more sceptical. I no longer trust a word from the Health Authorities.

No child of mine would ever, under any circumstances, have one of these toxic Covid jabs.

Epi
Epi
3 years ago

The MHRA is an absolute disgrace it should be disbanded immediately and its executive especially June Raine prosecuted for negligence and crimes against humanity. Despicable people.

sskinner
3 years ago

WHY?!!!!
Previously, in western medicine, we vaccinated our young against diseases that predominantly killed the young. Many children throughout the world survived a multitude of pathogens to live into old age. All those vaccines administered to children were once only, with the exception of Tetanus. All the cold and flu viruses mutate so there will be no end to the ‘vaccines’ and exposing infants to the world around (reasonably) is the only way to kick start an innate immune system that has been developing over many millions of years.
This stinks.

Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago

“This is madness, obviously…”
Obviously…
So when are people going to rear up against this continuing madness?!?!
When are people going to wake to the fact they’ve been had…big time…
This is a massive scam to establish a repeat pandemic industry, and control over the population, to make people submissive to government dictated medical interventions, and oppressed by digital ID / a social credit system.
And now they’re planning to jab babies, along with other children who were at no risk of Covid.
Why? Is it because they want to get everyone locked into this diabolical enslavement system, from womb to tomb?
Have a serious look at the government and ‘opposition’ who have facilitated this treachery, it’s way past time to overturn the tables,

Edumacated eejit
3 years ago

I can’t find Raine’s recent pronouncement on the jab for babies, but no doubt the wording is the same as her approval of it for 12 to 15 year olds:

“We have carefully reviewed clinical trial data in children aged 12 to 15 years and have concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective in this age group and that the benefits of this vaccine outweigh any risk.” [my bolding]

It’s a scandal that she gets away with this – she doesn’t bl**dy know all the risks!

Simon MacPhisto
Simon MacPhisto
3 years ago

Anyone involved in this approval needs to be locked up. Jail or rubber bedroom. Either will do.

ellie-em
3 years ago

I’d prefer they were stood up, back to the wall, facing front…I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.