Targeting our littlies

In response to a recently published article in the ‘Saturday Telegraph’, CHDA has emailed Robert Booy, seeking further explanations for his point of view.

Dear Robert Booy,

I write to you on behalf of Children’s Health Defense Australia (CHDA), a non-profit organisation devoted to the health of people and the planet. We actively follow work that is done to evaluate, authorise and approve vaccines for the Australian public, particularly children.

I am referring to the newspaper article attached. Why are you encouraging the reckless endangering of our children with products that have little, no, or even negative net efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke, and other thrombotic events and future reproductive harms?

This letter by Robert F Kennedy Jnr, briefly outlines why such a recommendation would be reckless for millions of children around the world https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CHD-Letter-to-FDA-VRBPAC_2022-06-10.pdf

I would also like to question the ethics behind the following statements you recently made in a newspaper article:

• “Sydney University paediatrician and immunisation expert Prof Robert Booy said we can judge how the rollout goes in America while our TGA evaluates the mRNA vaccine”
• “We can afford to wait and follow the US. If we follow them two to three months later, we have safety experience in millions of children to fall back on, to say, ‘Yes, it is well tolerated in that age group.” (How is the story already written?)
• “They will have millions safely vaccinated to follow their example.”

Can you please supply references to the following statements?:

1. More than 1200 children and adolescents have died in the US since the beginning of the pandemic and hospitalisations have soared with the arrival of the Omicron variant.
2. The FDA found adverse reactions in younger children were generally lower compared with those observed in adolescents and young adults.
3. There are a small number of children in Australia who died, who were previously healthy before covid.
4. Covid vaccines have also been shown to reduce the risk of longer-term complications.

Could you please supply further information about the following statements:

• “There will also be a third dose for high-risk children”. Please define “high risk”.
• “Australia will likely follow suit after a strict evaluation of the safety data.” Please define “strict evaluation”.
• “Pfizer was given a provisional determination last Thursday, which means it can now apply to use its vaccine in the under-fives”. Are you using Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine?
• “Flu itself is a bigger risk to children under five than covid and they should get their flu jab first.” Are you suggesting that children under 5, should add a flu jab AND a covid jab to the current schedule? How do you know this is safe and how did you come to this conclusion?

I look forward to your response.