We are a small group of concerned parents and medical professionals who have been following the situation carefully over the last year. We’ve recently been made aware of the COVID-19 vaccination teaching resources being offered to schoolteachers for class presentation. 
In light of this, the recent announcements that COVID-19 vaccine trials have begun on children  and infants  and that the government may begin the vaccination of children this summer , we feel it is now a matter of some urgency to speak-up and offer balance to the hasty and ill-considered approach that’s being taken.
The current level of public discourse on the question of COVID-19 vaccinations has been reduced to an absurd binary; one must be either completely on-board with the government position or an ‘anti-vaxxer’. Both ends of this spectrum involve an uncritical faith, which is both dangerous and profoundly anti-scientific.
We must urgently begin a broader, more nuanced discussion on the subject, one that includes a diverse range of perspectives and indeed fundamental biological ones.
Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of modern medical ethics. It’s legal enshrining can be traced back to the post WW2 Nuremburg Code. It’s based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, risks and consequences of a medical intervention.
In cases where an individual is provided insufficient or partial information to form a reasoned decision, serious ethical issues arise. A medical intervention without valid informed consent is a criminal offence. 
If a school (or other body) is taking on the role of offering advice regarding a medical intervention and they fail to adhere to these fundamental standards, they are not only seriously failing in their ethical responsibility but also risk being found criminally negligent in the case of injury.
We’d like to clarify and correct key generalisations and errors from the resources. Our hope is that this information can form the basis of their revision and perhaps inform school policy more generally going forward. All points are referenced primarily using the source data and studies (or articles with links to those within).
Links can be found below.
“Vaccinations save more lives than (smoke alarms, compulsory seat-belts and Anti-smoking campaigns) put together”
Vaccination is widely recognised as one of the great medical advances. It's based on the idea of benignly priming the immune system to prevent severe disease/death in the individual and/or the transmission to others. However, no medicine is without risk. Different vaccines carry different risks and benefits for different individuals, just as is the case for other pharmaceuticals.
“A vaccine is a medicine which protects people from getting a disease”
Ideally yes, but the risks from a disease to the individual, the efficacy of protection and any possible risks from the vaccine itself, must all be carefully considered.
According to the WHO, COVID-19 has an estimated Infection fatality rate of ‘less than 0.2%’ across all ages , however there is a 1000 fold difference in death risk for those over 80 versus children. 
Healthy children are at almost no risk from Covid-19, with the recovery rate in this age group calculated at 99.997%  and a far lower risk of transmitting the infection.   
According to NHS data, as of Feb 4 2021 there have been only 6 deaths from COVID-19 under the age of 19 without any pre-existing health conditions in the U.K .
In contrast, during the 2019 - 2020 winter season there were 12 deaths under the age of 17 without any pre-existing health conditions from influenza, a 100% higher death rate in a much smaller space of time. 
Conversely, those in the top four ‘priority groups’ account for almost 90% of those at risk of severe disease and death  and 98% in the top nine. 
In the U.K the average age of death with COVID-19 is 82.4 (about 14 months older than the all-cause average age of death), 91% of deaths and 90% of hospitalisations involve patients with at least one pre-existing health condition.  
The trials have shown a relative risk reduction in symptomatic cases, which could be significant for the most vulnerable. However the trials were not designed to determine whether they could interrupt transmission, asymptomatic infections or reduce serious outcomes. 
“Vaccines are made from dead or inactive versions of viruses or bacteria…”
Traditionally they are but not in this case. The Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna vaccines involve completely new mRNA vaccine technology.
Astra-Zeneca, while involving a standard delivery method, still involves presenting modified DNA fragments to the host cell which will then be taken up by the host to programme for spike protein production, rather than the more traditional whole virus or viral protein technologies.
“…These vaccines have been developed in the same way as other vaccines, which have been used safely and effectively for many years.”
No. These vaccines use entirely novel technology, have been developed faster than any in medical history and are intended for use on an unprecedented scale. There is simply no safety database nor any validated methods at all which could guide us on the potential for unwanted effects in the mid to long-term.
With classical vaccines, all that changes each time is the ‘immunogen’, the material placed in the mixture to which a desirable immune response is sought. It is not appropriate in this case to employ our usual assumptions on general safety. 
The potential adverse consequences of such a mass inoculation with a vaccine not adequately tested for mid to long-term adverse effects could be substantial. 
“A vaccinated person should be able to produce the correct antibodies very quickly and therefore fight the disease”
The immune system of a healthy person will do exactly that (and much more) without a vaccine. That’s what it’s evolved to do and it’s the reason why more than 99.8% of unvaccinated people recover. 
A recent study has shown that multiple COVID-19 variants are not as effectively neutralized by vaccine-induced antibody response as they are by naturally acquired immunity:
“ …Individuals in our study who reported having prior COVID-19 infection or significant exposure had among the highest neutralization titers (antibody concentration) for most variants and exhibited substantial cross-neutralization.” 
Antibodies are only one factor to consider in fighting infection. They fade over time therefore have little significance in the long term and appear to be less essential for protection even in the short term. 
T cells on the other hand have been shown to provide broad, lasting immunity following natural infection  and across all studied COVID-19 variants. 
“Research establishments including Yale found that in mild or asymptomatic cases, many T cells are produced. These were highly varied, responding not just to parts of the Spike, S protein or Receptor Binding Domain but to many other parts of the virus.” 
Good protective T cell response appears to be closely related to vitamin D levels:
"When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signalling device or 'antenna' known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D," and if there is an inadequate vitamin D level, "they won't even begin to mobilize." 
This may explain why vitamin D deficiency was seen in 80% of patients , has been shown to raise the risk of infection by 77%  and In randomised control studies high doses of vitamin D reduced ICU admissions by 97% and eliminated deaths in patients.  
The obese, diabetics and BAME groups – all considered ‘high-risk’ – are on average far more deficient in vitamin D. Recent studies indicate vitamin D deficiency is the driving factor behind the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on BAME communities.  
Zinc is also significant.
“Most of the risk groups for COVID-19 are at the same time groups that were associated with zinc deficiency” . Low levels of zinc have also been shown to be associated with an increased risk of death in patients. 
General good health and immune system support is by far the broadest, most effective prophylaxis for all viral infection including COVID-19.
That said, a number of cheap, well-established medications have also seen significant results.
Ivermectin, which appears to be the most effective of these, has racked up 72 studies (35 peer reviewed) over the past year, looking at its effect on COVID-19. 100% of the studies show significant positive effects for prophylaxis, early and late treatment and mortality. 
If a safe, effective, thoroughly tried-and-tested medical intervention is available, it would further call into question the absolute necessity of an emergency-use vaccine for all.
“It is important that everyone who can take the vaccine gets it as soon as possible…”
This sort of rhetoric is irresponsible and unethical. It encourages the vaccination of minors with an experimental product about which no medium- or long-term effects are known, which has demonstrated no evidence to interrupt transmission, against a disease which presents no material risk to them.
Injecting a medication should never be considered a trivial event. The decision should be based on a well thought out risk-benefit analysis. 
“ For a vaccine with high levels of uncertainty as to the projected costs, a high risk factor is required. For the trade-off to justify moving forward, a very high level of benefits would be required.” 
It was recently announced by PHE that a single shot of either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine cuts the risk of serious illness by more than 80% in people aged over 80 . Over 90% of over 60’s have received their first dose. There’s no justification for the young and healthy to be vaccinated with these groups now protected.
We need not look far back into history to remember the devastating harms a rushed-to-market vaccination can have. Over 1000 children and many adults were permanently disabled with narcolepsy caused by the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine in 2009. A vaccine that was shown to have been completely unnecessary given the very low risk involved and for which £60 million in compensation was eventually paid out to victims. 
To repeat such a mistake here on a vastly larger scale would be unforgivable.
“…This is to achieve herd immunity which will protect ourselves and our communities, herd immunity is the only way we can stop the virus being transmitted.”
Herd immunity was developed as an epidemiological and not an immunological concept, relating to immunity that is acquired naturally. To suggest it’s solely the result of vaccination is misleading at best and ignores universally accepted science.
For those not considered high-risk, particularly children and young people, naturally acquired immunity will be safer, broader and longer lasting than vaccine acquired.
Indeed the vaccine trials did not intend to demonstrate whether they prevented infection or transmission of the virus and therefore can’t actually tell us anything about their impact on herd immunity. 
As early as May 2020 Public Health England found 17.5% of London blood donors showing COVID-19 antibodies  with more recent ONS data (March 2021) showing almost 30% and slightly more amongst young people . Whilst these antibodies will fade over time, they indicate exposure and the long-term protective benefits derived from that. Given that not all those infected will produce antibodies, we can safely assume that the numbers of those with naturally acquired protection are higher.
Effective T-cell responses to COVID-19 have been shown in all recovered patients   and ‘cross-reactive’ T cell memory in those infected by the original SARS,17 years prior . What’s more surprising is that T cell immunity is present in a large percentage of unexposed individuals / samples too.  
A German study found 81% of individuals had pre-existing T-cells that cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 epitopes , concluding that exposure to one of the commonly circulating coronaviruses has given many of us ‘cross-immunity’.
Classical herd immunity is generally thought to be somewhere between 50 – 75%. However studies looking at herd immunity in regards to COVID-19 specifically estimate that it could be significantly lower:
“Because human populations are far from homogeneous, Britton et al. show that by introducing age and activity heterogeneities into population models for SARS-COV-2, herd immunity can be achieved at a population-wide infection rate of ~40%, considerably lower than previous estimates. This shift is because transmission and immunity are concentrated among the most active members of a population, who are younger and less vulnerable. If non-pharmaceutical interventions are very strict, no herd immunity is achieved”. 
Another study estimated it could be as low as 10-20% for similar reasons. 
Neither of these studies factor in the effects of vaccination. However, UCL has estimated that through a combination of vaccine induced and naturally acquired immunity the U.K would achieve herd immunity by April 12th 2021. 
Either way, at this point most data would suggest that we are at, or extremely close to, population herd immunity. This would further justify the position that vaccination of the young and healthy, with vulnerable groups now protected, is completely unnecessary.
“How have COVID-19 vaccines been made so quickly and yet safely?”
On average a vaccine will take around 10 years to develop and bring to market. The quickest development of a vaccine prior to these was more than 4 years.
The current vaccines have been issued under a temporary Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) by the MHRA. This has allowed their development to avoid long-term evaluation, combine trial phases and bypass standard procedure, greatly accelerating the process.
Vaccine manufacturers recognise the real risk that an accelerated vaccine trial process will bring, therefore the EUA includes legal indemnity for those companies in the event of injury or death.
“This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in…four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” 
If this risk is significant enough for the manufacturers to anticipate economic loss, is it really ethical that children and young people are being encouraged to take that risk to their long-term health?
“All the vaccines have been tested thoroughly…they are safe and they work.”
Getting the vaccines to market in the same number of months that normally takes years is an extraordinary feat, however EUA means they’ve been released with far less testing than would normally be the case.
There is no long-term safety data. The EUA means that all vaccines being rolled out are still in phase 3 of their trials, which won’t be completed until 2023. 
Pfizer and AstraZeneca have reported a 90% and 70% efficacy respectively. Whilst these figures sound impressive there’s very little public understanding of what they actually mean:
“ Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.” 
So, for example, the Pfizer trial subjects en masse had a 0.7% higher level of protection if they had received the vaccine than if they hadn’t.
Further, the BMJ states:
“ None of the trials…are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.” 
They’re also not designed to tell us anything about asymptomatic cases, which are the vast majority of ‘cases’ and the main driver of the figures (around 80%) . We can’t therefore be sure that the vaccine isn’t just suppressing symptoms.
Those most at risk from severe disease - the immunocompromised and those with with severe or uncontrolled comorbidities (respiratory, heart, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disease, vascular disease, and other conditions) were excluded from trials, as were pregnant women, children and those with a known history or previous diagnosis of COVID-19.
Unintended consequences of pathogenesis from vaccines are not new, nor are they unexpected. The COVID-19 vaccine consent form states:
“ I understand that…the vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. I also understand that it is not possible to predict all possible side effects or complications which could be associated with the vaccine. I understand that the long-term side effects or complications of this vaccine are not known at this time. 
A study looking into COVID-19 vaccine safety considerations specifically flagged up more than 16 serious potential adverse effects and concluded:
“...It is difficult to see how safe COVID-19 vaccines can be developed and fully tested for safety on development time scales of one or two years, as proposed presently. The only real protection against a future COVID-19 pandemic or any other viral pandemic is the one that was demonstrated to work in the SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 pandemic, and in the annual influenza pandemics: a healthy immune system capable of neutralizing incoming viruses as nature intended.” 
Previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines failed primarily due to what’s called ‘antibody dependent enhancement’ (ADE), which led to severe illness and death in subjects involved in the trials. 
“The risk of ADE in COVID-19 vaccines is non-theoretical and compelling.” 
A similar and associated risk is vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). 
In previous studies of vaccines and autoimmunity it’s been concluded that latency periods can range from days to years for post-infection and post-vaccination autoimmunity. Mid-term adverse effects of vaccines, such as central nervous system inflammatory demyelination and diabetes have been shown to emerge after approximately 3 years. Longer-term possible effects, such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, fertility effects etc, have not been studied and so remain unknown.
An added risk that comes with the vaccination of large numbers of the population is creating resistant, more virulent and potentially untreatable viral mutations.
Resistance has been a concern for many decades with respect to antibiotics but we rarely hear about viral resistance. Vaccine-derived viral strains are a related and well-established adverse outcome. Considering the intended scale of vaccination this will be inevitable on some level without a far more focussed, careful approach.   
“Any side effects mean that the immune system is working properly. However uncomfortable these are, the disease itself can be much worse.”
History shows many examples of serious adverse events from vaccines brought to market in periods of enormous pressure and expectation. There were contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, Vaccine Associated Enhanced Respiratory Disease in infants and children following RSV vaccinations  and narcolepsy linked to the H1N1 vaccine in 2009. 
As of 28 February 2021 the MHRA have received 297,274
suspected Adverse Drug Reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. These include: Blindness, Bell’s Palsy, Anaphylaxis, Cardiac arrest and 508 deaths. 
Other countries are showing similar patterns . Reported deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine in the US are approximately 48 times those of the influenza vaccine for the current season, despite the number of flu shots given being 550% higher. 
The FDA list the following as ‘possible adverse event outcomes’:
Guillain-Barré syndrome, Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Transverse myelitis, Encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/ meningoencephalitis/meningitis/ encepholapathy, Convulsions/seizures, Stroke, Narcolepsy and cataplexy, Anaphylaxis, Acute myocardial infarction, Myocarditis/pericarditis, Autoimmune disease, Deaths, Pregnancy and birth outcomes, Other acute demyelinating diseases, Non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, Thrombocytopenia, Disseminated intravascular coagulation, Venous thromboembolism, Arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain Kawasaki disease, Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, Vaccine enhanced disease. 
To be very clear, we are not implying a categorical link between the vaccines and the current adverse reactions. Nor are we suggesting that any of the potential health risks are inevitable.
What we are saying is that the definitive ‘safe and effective’ mantra is not justified; there’s currently very little data to support that claim and well-recognized risks have been ignored by those dogmatically pushing the vaccine roll-out. We simply don’t know and it’s false to claim otherwise.
The MHRA state:
“For a medicine or vaccine to be considered safe, the expected benefits will be greater than the risk of having harmful reactions.” 
That may be the case for the elderly and those in the vulnerable groups, however for the young and healthy it’s clearly not.
Any suggestion that children should be vaccinated to prevent spread to older people is questionable on two grounds: (1) the ethics of children having an unknown long-term risk imposed on them for no matching benefit and (2) if vaccination is available for those vulnerable persons who desire it, such a need is surely absent.
The encouraging or coercing of young people, particularly children, to take these vaccines is unnecessary, reckless and contrary to fundamental medical ethics. It must be stopped immediately.
A broad scientific discussion of the many factors involved would be a thoroughly topical and practical educational opportunity for students. But more importantly it would be upholding one of their fundamental human rights by facilitating true informed consent for themselves and their parents.
Parents Following The Science.