Grotesquely misleading to describe C-19 vaccine as experimental

AS a retired consultant in medical microbiology, I’ve followed the evolution of the pandemic and the UK vaccine programme with considerable interest. That the vaccines have saved countless thousands of lives is a matter of record. Unfortunately, there are many out there who, for various dubious reasons or through simple naivety, disseminate misinformation that can be very damaging.

Two letters – Karen Jacobs (19th February) and David Halpin (22nd February) – had letters published on the recent recommendation for children age 5-11 to be offered the vaccine. Both make reference to their healthcare backgrounds which might seem to give added authority to their words. I have serious concerns about both the tone and the contents of both letters.

I read both letters with concern. As retired health professionals, like me, they have a duty to be scrupulous in presenting accurate information and avoid deliberately emotive narrative when discussing Covid vaccine for 5-11 year old children. They have both fallen short of this.

It is grotesquely misleading to describe the vaccine as experimental. In addition to the initial clinical trials, hundreds of millions of adults have been immunised with the Pfizer vaccine so that a vast amount of data on safety and efficacy has been collected in a remarkably short time.

More than eight million children aged 5-11 have now been immunised in the USA with the Pfizer vaccine and only two cases per million of mycocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) occurred, which all resolved quickly. Crucially, Mr Halpin’s alarming statement that the vaccine is inserted into the genes of every cell is simply not true.

The detailed statement from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is freely available, and I would expect both correspondents to have studied this, but it would seem not. Contrary to Ms Jacobs’ assertion, it does come down with advice to give the vaccine. Of course, as with all childhood vaccines in the UK, it is ultimately the parents’ decision whether to take the advice or not. The rationale that JCVI gives for vaccinating children of this age is not to protect adults, but to reduce the small but real risk to the children themselves of severe infection from potential new strains.

There is no doubt that the benefits of immunising young children are far less clear-cut or overwhelming than those for adults. However, parents should make the decision in the light of the carefully considered evidence-based advice of the JCVI, rather than inaccurate, over-emotive contributions to this newspaper.