Dr. Ros Jones: The Chief Medical Officers made the decision to vaccinate children in the UK
Covid posed no risk to children. To coerce children into getting vaccinated fear campaigns told them they should get vaccinated so they “didn’t kill granny.”
Because of the risk of myocarditis, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advised against covid injections being given to healthy children under the age of 18. However, Chris Whitty intervened and requested they review their decision.
Presumably succumbing to political pressure, a few months later the Committee handed over the decision to the Chief Medical Officers. It was the Chief Medical Officers of the four nations who decided to vaccinate children. The justification they gave was to improve children’s mental health, Dr. Ros Jones said.
“From where I’m sitting, the whole of the pandemic’s management for children … was a complete betrayal of children’s needs,” she told the People’s Vaccine Inquiry.
Because the UK Covid Inquiry delayed its module on vaccines until January 2025, last week a group of experts launched the People’s Vaccine Inquiry. The group believes it is in the public interest to give immediate access to their expert testimony on the covid “vaccines.”
You can follow the People’s Vaccine Inquiry (“the Inquiry”) on Twitter HERE and you can watch or read all the testimonials on its website HERE. The organisers of the Inquiry encourage other experts to come forward and provide additional testimonials by submitting them via THIS email link.
Retired NHS consultant paediatrician Ros Jones is one of the experts who gave her oral testimony to the Inquiry. Her testimony was on behalf of the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (“CCVAC”), a group comprising over 200 senior doctors and medical experts from public health, paediatrics, cardiology, infectious diseases and many other specialities who shared a grave concern for the roll-out of covid “vaccines” to children. Her testimony focused on answering the question: Are covid injections safe and effective for children?
You can read CCVAC’s 80-page written statement submitted to the Inquiry HERE. The following is taken from the video above.
CCVAG wrote to UK regulators and three consecutive prime ministers. “We got no sensible answers,” Dr. Jones said. “So, we’ve been trying to share our information with parents.”
Dr. Jones has prepared a witness statement for the UK Covid Inquiry. She has also prepared a CCVAG position statement, which we referred to above as a written statement, and submitted it to the People’s Vaccine Inquiry.
There are four themes contained within the position statement that Dr. Jones feels are the most important: the huge differential risk by age; the lack of ethics in using a “one size fits all” approach, whether it was applied to non-pharmaceutical interventions or for vaccines; the legal system for children’s trials and the approval process; and, the poor risk-benefit balance. These are the themes she focused on in her oral testimony.
Risks the Covid Virus Posed to Children
“If you were under 40, the chance of dying from covid was absolutely negligible,” Dr. Jones said. This can be seen clearly in the chart below of “covid deaths” which was compiled from Office of National Statistics (“ONS”) data.
“What surprises people is: even if you look at the over 90s, 3.3% of over 90s died of covid in [2020]. That’s much less than most people’s perception because fear [of the risk] was exaggerated [ ] across all age groups, “ Dr. Jones said.
Death in childhood is a rare event in the UK and so all child deaths are reviewed regularly to look for avoidable factors. In England, during the 12 months of March 2020 to March 2021, which covered the first two covid waves, “they only managed to find 25 children for whom covid was either the main or a contributing cause of death. And of those, three-quarters had severe co-morbidities, mostly described as life-limiting,” Dr. Jones explained.
“So, although for the whole group [of 0-18 years old] it gave a risk of 1 in 500,000, if you take healthy under 18s, that drops to 1 in 2,000,000,” she added. “Despite knowing this very low risk to children, we gave them restrictions that were completely disproportionate to their risk. Society turned childhood from sociable and active into a place of fear and isolation.”
“We even threw in a guilt message of ‘Don’t kill your granny’ for good measure.”
Not only was this wreaking havoc on children’s education and mental health but it was priming their parents for wanting the covid “vaccine” as the route back to normal.
Unethical Children’s Trials for Covid Vaccines
“The manufacturers have got a real problem here,” Dr. Jones said because of the Helsinki Declaration.
The Helsinki Declaration is a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving humans, developed by the World Medical Association in 1964. It is based on the Nuremberg Code and is considered the most important document in the history of research ethics. The Declaration provides a foundation for scientific efforts worldwide, protecting those who participate in medical research for their own benefit as well as the benefit of others with similar medical conditions.
The Declaration is “about anybody who lacks capacity, which of course includes children,” Dr. Jones said.
The Declaration was enacted into UK law in 2004 through the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations. It also has been included in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005), to which the UK is a signatory.
Article 7, referring to people without the capacity to consent, is really clear, Dr. Jones explained. It states: “Authorisation for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned” and that “research should only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit.”
In other words, “You cannot do research on children unless it’s for their direct health benefit. You cannot do this for societal benefits,” Dr. Jones said.
“You can imagine my surprise in February 2021, only a couple of months after the vaccine rollout had begun in adults, I was watching the early evening news and there is Oxford University asking for children aged 6-15 to join a trial of AstraZeneca,” she said.
At the time, Dr. Jones knew there was no long-term adult safety data on covid “vaccines” and that there was no risk to children from covid infection. “But what I didn’t know,” she said, “is that only two weeks before that had been the first death of a young adult in the UK … Stephen Wright … a Yellow Card [report was made] … So, the MHRA are too busy approving a drug trial for children to even notice [or do] what they’re meant to be doing which is looking at the Yellow Cards for a huge adverse event.”
Related: Victims of AstraZeneca: Dr. Stephen Wright
Professor Andrew Pollard was the chief investigator for the children’s trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. He is also the chairman of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (“JCVI”) and his fellow principal investigator for the children’s trial, Professor Adam Finn, was also a JCVI member. The JCVI advises the Government health departments in the four UK nations on vaccine safety, efficacy and the impact and cost-effectiveness of immunisation strategies.
Dr. Jones wrote to Prof. Pollard on 16 February 2021 stating that “surely he would wait until the adult trials had been completed before even thinking about starting trials for children.” Prof. Pollard replied and said that he agreed with Dr. Jones that the safety of the vaccine in children was yet to be established. However, Prof. Pollard went on to say that the other manufacturers are doing vaccine trials for children … “So, if Pfizer and Moderna do it then it’s okay for AstraZeneca?” Dr. Jones said dismayed.
Less than 4 weeks after children began signing up for the Oxford-AstraZeneca trial there was a post-vaccination death in Demark and the use of the AstraZeneca injection was suspended in Denmark. The UK had had about a dozen deaths by that time, Dr. Jones said.
“The children’s trial, in fairness, was stopped at that point,” Dr. Jones said. “About a month later [in April] the JCVI said that AstraZeneca’s injection shouldn’t be given to under 30s and in May, they said it shouldn’t be given to under 40s,” she said.
However, quite recently Dr. Jones discovered that the halting of the children’s trial was only temporary. In May 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) decided that it was safe to give a second dose to the children. The reason MHRA gave was that “it seemed that in adults the side effects were really only mostly after dose one,” Dr. Jones explained. “So, the children were being given a second dose of a drug that had already been withdrawn for under 40s.”
The Oxford children’s trial wasn’t the only unethical trial. “Moderna, only last summer, was doing a trial of a new booster and they were recruiting healthy 12 to 64-year-olds,” she said. This trial was called the NextCOVE study.
The trial paperwork said the safety and efficacy were not known and trial results would be compared to that of the existing Moderna injection, “which hasn’t really got a very good track record, let’s face it, for either safety or efficacy” Dr. Jones said.
“[Moderna] were enrolling healthy under 64s, including healthy children, when we had already stopped the boosters for all healthy under 65s,” she said. “So, they were comparing it to a booster they weren’t even eligible for.”
As if that wasn’t unethical enough, one of the trial participating NHS centres was advertising on WhatsApp that children would be paid a bonus of £1,500 if they completed the study. “That breaks all the rules about inducements,” Dr. Jones said.
A response to a Freedom of Information request to the NHS Trust that offered the £1,500 bonus revealed that they had made the offer based on a draft trial information leaflet for parents. This draft had been rejected by the Research Ethics Committee. After it was rejected, Moderna’s information leaflet was redrafted removing the bonus and stating that only travel expenses of participants would be reimbursed.
Chief Medical Officers Decide to Vaccinate Children
Dr. Jones then spoke about the first approval for the covid injections’ use in children in mid-2021.
“The [Pfizer and Moderna] trials were woefully inadequate both in numbers and duration for looking at either safety or efficacy,” Dr. Jones said. So, in May 2021, while Pfizer and Moderna were applying for approval in the United States, CCVAG wrote to the MHRA, before it was approved for children in the UK, about their concerns.
“Which, interestingly, got us all put on to the counter-disinformation list,” she said.
“We got no sensible reply, well no reply at all from the MHRA despite nagging and phone calls. And eventually, I got a reply – two hours after they had approved it.” The reply of course said the MHRA had reviewed Pfizer’s trial data and had concluded the vaccine was safe and effective for children.
After MHRA approval, it is the JCVI that decides whether a vaccine will be used or not. “To be fair to the JCVI, they waited quite a long time,” Dr. Jones said. “They obviously were considering or trying to consider the balance of risk versus benefits.”
“The benefits were very unclear because children were so mildly affected by covid so children hadn’t really got much to gain … And [the JCVI] were also looking at the risks. They knew already from the countries that had rolled this out, that actually the side effects seemed to be worse in younger age groups. And for myocarditis, the heart inflammation, the highest incidence is among adolescents – 16 to 19-year-olds is the worst age group,” she added. (Beginning at timestamp 13:22 Dr. Jones spoke in more detail about myocarditis, cancer and other risks of covid injections, which we haven’t detailed here.)
The JCVI sat on it for about six weeks after MHRA approval. “Eventually at the end of July, they made a statement saying they were not going to advise this [vaccine] for healthy under 18s because the cost-to-benefit ratio was too close to call,” Dr. Jones said.
However, the minutes of JCVI meetings show that within 48 hours of the announcement, the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, requested the JCVI hold an emergency meeting to review their decision. The JCVI were concerned and requested they be given 6 months before they came to a decision to allow for time for the follow-up of myocarditis cases that had been reported in the United States.
In September, “I think they must have succumbed, I can only assume, to political pressure because they then said ‘We can’t recommend this on health benefits to the children but we’ll pass it onto the Chief Medical Officers who might want to look at a broader remit’,” Dr. Jones said.
The Chief Medical Officers of the four nations decided to approve the covid vaccines for children, to improve children’s mental health. Dr. Jones explained their reasoning: School closures had finally been acknowledged as affecting children’s mental health and so the Chief Medical Officers thought if they got the vaccines rolled out to children it would help keep schools open.
“What they completely ignored,” Dr. Jones said, “is that it was actually on the last day of the summer term, and a few weeks before this decision, that they decided to change the quarantine rules so that they were not quarantining healthy classmates.”
Before that, a whole class of 30 children, or even a whole year group of 150, would be sent home for one positive covid test. “And it was that that was causing most of the school loss,” she said.
The Chief Medical Officers only approved one dose, which was interesting, Dr. Jones said. “That’s kind of a quiet way of acknowledging that there’s concern, particularly with myocarditis after the second dose. But having said that, by November they just quietly rolled out the second dose with no fanfare.”
In concluding her testimony Dr. Jones said: “From where I’m sitting, the whole of the pandemic’s management for children – whether the school closures, masks in schools, fear-mongering ‘don’t kill your granny’ messaging, let alone giving a novel gene-based vaccine to healthy children – was a complete betrayal of children’s needs … It doesn’t say a lot about the soul of the society we live in.”
