Module 4 report from a children’s perspective

Dr Ros Jones, retired consultant paediatrician, HART member, convenor of the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council (CCVAC)

Over 2 months has passed since Baroness Hallett published her fourth report on Module 4: Vaccines and Therapeutics and much has been written since. 

Several different groups who had initially been rejected for core participant status, were none-the-less invited to submit witness statements for the Inquiry, which we duly did in January 2024 and, in the absence of any undertaking to call us or to publish our statements on the Inquiry website (that was to be at Baroness Hallett’s ‘discretion’), we had all published extensively at the time and spoken at a number of meetings in London, Edinburgh, Belfast & Dublin during 2025.

So, when Hallett’s report was finally published on 16th April 2026, full of congratulations and absent of any seriously difficult questions, there was perhaps understandably, a sense of weariness. We wrote an article for the HART website later that day, promising more detailed responses from the members of the People’s Vaccine Inquiry in the days to come. Liz Evans from UK Medical Freedom Alliance posted a video response and this written response and also gave a long interview on Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics. Meanwhile Clare Craig wrote an article in the Daily Sceptic on the myth of 475,000 lives saved. 

But I just kept saying I would do my response ‘next week’. I’m sure my mother wasn’t the only one to tell her daughters (or sons) that ‘the way to hell is paved with good intentions’.

So finally here I go.

The article above this one, has covered many of the general aspects of the report, the assumptions of lives saved, the downplaying of ‘rare’ or ‘extremely rare’ vaccine injuries, the lack of any proper investigation of the gross regulatory failures and an assumption that ‘vaccine hesitancy’ was fed by ‘misinformation’. 

What were the implications of all this for children? A word search on the 288 pages of the report revealed the words ‘child’ or ‘children’ appeared 120 times(including in the references). Encouraging you might think but the distribution tells its own story.

‘Voices’: 

The opening of each module has included ‘Every Story Matters’ and the reports start with ‘Voices’. This is all intended to show a caring listening approach. The first time the word children appears is thus a harrowing quote from Kate Scott, Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK, speaking about her husband Jamie who sustained a major stroke after his AstraZeneca jab: “his relationship with our children will never be the same again”.

But then follows the Executive Summary in which children are not even mentioned once.

Chapter 1 The Landscape of Vaccines and Therapeutics.

This includes a section on Attitudes to vaccination with children mentioned 9 times. It re-iterates the global mantra of vaccination saving millions and the importance of maintaining confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule.

1.14. Since the World Health Organization launched its main global childhood vaccination programme in 1974, the lives of an estimated 154 million children have been saved through routine vaccination. 

1.17. Childhood vaccination coverage was generally high in the UK, reaching above 90%….between 2011 and 2012. However, childhood vaccination rates in the UK fell in the years leading up to 2019.

1.18. In particular, the vaccine for measles (a highly contagious airborne virus which can cause serious complications and death, particularly in children), which is part of the routine vaccination programme in the form of the combined MMR vaccine, has seen the greatest fall in coverage. [Factually misleading: measles has a far lower risk in children than in adults.]

This chapter is laying the groundwork for blaming vaccine ‘hesitancy’ on social media activity and ignoring the possibility that parental caution about covid vaccines was extremely wise!

Chapter 2: Discovery and Development:

Here children get a small mention under Size and diversity of clinical trials.

2.99. Pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and immunocompromised people were generally excluded from the Covid-19 vaccine trials on safety grounds. Historically, drug development has tended to avoid testing in children and pregnancy. 

2.135. NHS supporting a new programme to fund research about pandemic preparedness, consisting of commissioning three platform clinical trials evaluating interventions in hospitalised adults, hospitalised children, and adults in a community setting, with the aim of pivoting to deliver the research in a pandemic. 

In other words, we need to do more, and quicker. No understanding that the reason for generally completing adult trials and waiting to ensure safety in adults ahead of starting children’s trials stems from the tenets of the Nuremberg Code which makes very clear that consent for research cannot be given on behalf of children or adults who lack ‘capacity’, unless it is clear that each individual has the potential to benefit.

Chapter 4 Authorisation

The Make-up of clinical trials

The Inquiry noted that children were excluded from trials on safety grounds.

4.42 Pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and immunocompromised people were, however, generally excluded from trials of vaccines on safety grounds. Dame June Raine stressed the importance of post-authorisation surveillance for groups excluded from clinical trials.

They failed to comment on the ethics of not testing children in a trial sized for safety testing but then attempting a roll out to all children over the age of 5.

4.45. Similarly, post-authorisation evidence was utilised when assessing the risks of the vaccines for children. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were authorised for use in children in May and August 2021, respectively – more than a year into the pandemic. Dame June Raine explained that these authorisation decisions were based on clinical trials which found that the majority of side effects were “mild and comparable to that seen in adults”. Importantly, these findings were supported by real-world evidence where vaccines had been deployed in children in the UK and internationally.   

This is clearly factually incorrect: the real world data from both Israel and the US had revealed an increased risk of myocarditis in teenagers, especially boys before the UK had made any decision on giving these vaccines to children. This was also highlighted in the JCVI minutes where they had specifically asked for more time to look at longer term outcomes in these children and we had clearly pointed this out to the inquiry team in our witness statement.

Moreover the post-marketing surveillance in pregnancy was woefully inadequate.

Chapter 5 Delivery

Variations in the approach to vaccine eligibility and prioritisation Children and young people

In this section the JCVI caution was discussed but not the reason for it.

5.43. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation also took a cautious approach to the vaccination of children.

5.44. In July 2021, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation noted uncertainties about the medium and long-term outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination for children in relation to any side effects, because there had not been time to amass sufficient data on risk (ie on rates of adverse events) globally. This was set against the relatively small benefit from vaccination for children, given that those aged under 18 were at low risk of serious outcomes from Covid-19. It was therefore less urgent to offer vaccination to protect their individual health. 

The use of the phrase ‘”less urgent” makes no sense in this context. If children were not at significant risk from Covid-19 and the risk benefit balance was too close to call, then there was no ethical reason for a mass rollout to children at all, urgently or non urgently. 

5.47. The vaccination of younger children was considered again on 2 September 2021, in response to updated data on the risks and benefits of the vaccine to this age group. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation concluded that the clinical benefits of vaccination for children under 16 remained marginal and did not, by themselves, necessitate large-scale vaccination. However, it referred the issue to the Chief Medical Officers for the four nations for advice on the wider educational and public health benefits of vaccination. This was a departure from its usual process, but Professor Lim told the Inquiry that it was justified by the “very difficult … hugely fine balance” of clinical risk and benefit to children in comparison to adults.

How can a whole different governance procedure kick in because a decision was finely balanced? Surely with such a ““hugely fine balance” of clinical risk and benefit to children in comparison to adults”, the only safe option is to wait for more safety data, rather than rush ahead with a roll-out to a whole population.

Furthermore, there was NO mention of the meeting with international cardiologists concerning myocarditis risk, nor the request by several JCVI members to defer a decision until follow-up data on affected children was available (possibly as long as 6 months).

5.48. The Chief Medical Officers considered wider issues relevant to public health – including access to education and interlinked mental health issues – and gathered evidence via the Department for Education in England. Their advice, published on 13 September 2021, concluded that education was one of the most important drivers of improved public health. Disrupted education had a “massive impact” and the negative impact was “especially great” in areas of relative deprivation. For all children: “ The effects of disrupted education, or uncertainty, on mental health are well recognised. There can be lifelong effects on health if extended disruption to education leads to reduced life chances.” 

Vaccination would likely help reduce surges of infection in schools and therefore reduce closures and educational disruption, although there was “marginal advantage at an individual level”. The Chief Medical Officers therefore recommended that ministers extend the offer of one dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine to all children and young people aged 12 to 15 not already covered by existing Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice. The advice was followed by the UK government and devolved administrations and vaccinations were made available from 13 September 2021.  

NO mention of the fact that school closures  and educational disruption were largely due to the policy of testing children regularly and quarantining whole classes of asymptomatic children on the basis of a single positive result. This policy had been discontinued at the end of July 2021 but there was no discussion about deferring a decision on vaccinating children while waiting to see the impact of this policy change on school attendance in the autumn term. Furthermore, primary aged children were injected months after the milder omicron variant had arrived and when all other restrictions had been dropped.

5.49. In January and February 2022, the vaccination of children aged 5 to 11 years was considered. Children in this group were at the very lowest risk from Covid-19. Vaccination would prevent a small number of hospitalisations and intensive care admissions. It would also give short-term protection against less severe infection. The extent of this protection was uncertain but the benefits of preventing hospital and intensive care admission would be enhanced in the event of a more severe outbreak in the future: “The potential benefits from vaccination would apply mainly to a future wave of infection; the more severe a future wave, the greater the likely benefits from vaccination.” 

The Joint Committee advised that the health benefits, although lower than in other age groups, still outweighed the health risks. It recognised that the potential educational benefit was less certain than with 12 to 15 year olds. On 16 February 2022, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation issued advice that an offer of a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine should be made to children aged 5 to 11 years if they were not already vaccinated in a priority group. However, in light of the small margin of benefit, this offer should be non-urgent; the offer should not displace the delivery of other childhood vaccination programmes. 

5.51. The Inquiry considers that the approach taken to the vaccination of children was justified. While vaccination was appropriate, given the risk of Covid-19 to children, the relatively low level of that risk did not require a faster or more prescriptive vaccination programme. Of course, in a future pandemic, the disease might pose a greater risk of severe outcomes for children and then a more urgent offer may be appropriate. 

NO discussion of the fact that the majority of children had had the infection at this point; nor the lack of pharmacokinetic data for children, nor the evidence of negative vaccine efficacy within 6 weeks of dosage. Also no discussion re the idiocy of offering a vaccine in the spring for a mild variant that was already disappearing, in case there might be a more severe variant in future which the vaccine presumably would not cover! The result of vaccination is priming of the immune system against a previous variant such that it will respond to an outdated variant and be unable to adapt to any future exposure. Even if the vaccine could effectively reduce serious illness (questionable at best, wrong at worst), by the time an autumn wave arrived, the vaccine effect would have waned, and a booster would be advised! Excellent business model. 

NO discussion of balance of risk for children with a total novel technology with NO long-term safety data.

5.50. Sir Sajid Javid MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care from June 2021 to July 2022, told the Inquiry that he had been reluctant to offer vaccination to the 5 to 11-year age group because the decision was so finely balanced. He said the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation was of the view that the need to vaccinate this group might become more pressing at a later date, for example because of a more harmful variant, but it might then be too late to vaccinate the group. He also told the Inquiry that there was a “huge amount” of pressure from Boris Johnson MP (Prime Minister from July 2019 to September 2022) to vaccinate the group as quickly as possible. Ultimately, Sir Sajid Javid said that he was not unduly influenced by that pressure but accepted the advice as it came from the independent body tasked with assessing the evidence and because it was being framed as a “non-urgent offer” guided by parental choice. This approach, along with the timing of the advice, contributed to lower numbers of children than adults being vaccinated. 

At least this acknowledged that there was undue political pressure on medical decisions. It was notable that only around 10% of ‘high risk’ 5-11-year-olds were vaccinated and only 6.5% of healthy 5-11s. Is ‘vaccine hesitancy’ any surprise?

Clarity of messaging about vaccines during pregnancy 

5.142. Pregnant women are routinely excluded from clinical trials of vaccines and medications, as their inclusion is viewed by regulators and industry as inherently risky.

5.144. The advice changed slightly in mid-December 2020, by which time data from animal studies had found that there were no Covid-19 vaccine-related effects on female fertility, pregnancy or embryo-foetal development. 

Animal data was woefully inadequate and DID show fetal malformations. This information only came into the public domain after an FOI request to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

5.146. By April 2021, there was a large amount of global data on the use of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines in pregnant women from countries that had already authorised it. Studies including over 17 million pregnant women worldwide have found no increased risk of pregnancy complications or adverse effects for pregnant women and their babies following Covid-19 vaccination.  

WHAT STUDIES? Stating that a vaccine has been given to 17 million pregnant women and no increased pregnancy risks found, is very different from actively monitoring these pregnancies. NO mention of Scottish neonatal death peaks or other international data. NO mention of the V-SAFE pregnancy data which was only published in September 2025, after Cheryl Grainger took the MHRA to a First Tier Tribunal? This showed that 1 in 7 pregnant women suffered a serious adverse event (defined as requiring a hospital visit or permanent disability or congenital malformation or death ie not just a sore arm).

5.152. The low rates of vaccination were particularly worrying in light of the potential consequences of Covid-19 infection for pregnant women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told the Inquiry that, by October 2021, one in five of the most critically ill Covid-19 patients in hospitals was a pregnant woman and 99% of pregnant women admitted to hospital with symptomatic Covid-19 were unvaccinated.

The witness statement from the RCOG listed INQ000474713 para 33 contained no references to support this contention. Without the primary sources it is impossible to know if the critically ill Covid-19 pregnant women were simply in hospital for a pregnancy complication but then routinely tested using PCR, or indeed mislabelled as unvaccinated because they had not yet reached two weeks post 2nd dose. 

Certainly, scare stories about toddlers in hospital with covid in December 2021 were quickly debunked by the RCPCH as reflecting the normal precautionary approach of admitted younger children to hospital if they were unwell, rather than due to any true increase in severe disease.

5.156. The Department of Health and Social Care has recognised the challenge of inclusion of pregnant women in trials and provided £2.6 million of funding to a National Institute for Health and Care Research project, which began in the spring of 2025, to develop a new data system to assist with understanding the safety of medications during pregnancy.

NO mention of using the universal maternity database for post marketing surveillance. Maternity services in the UK have had an excellent electronic database in place for decades, allowing all clinical risk events to be routinely monitored yet no-one thought to ask for covid vaccines to be added as an extra field. FOIs sent to all 200 acute obstetric departments in the UK, revealed only 10% which were routinely including covid vaccine status on their database. This would have provided a real time way of monitoring preterm birth, birth weight, perinatal mortality and also pregnancy complications such as post-partum haemorrhage.

Ch 6. Disparities in vaccine access

Socio-economic status 

6.16. Children aged 12 to 15 in the most deprived areas were half as likely to be vaccinated with one dose of the vaccine (when made available to them) as those in the least deprived.

This aspect really interests me, as it has been my personal impression that levels of education have been inversely related to any questioning of the government narrative and to the application of basic common sense.

Parents did not need a medical degree to know that none of their children nor their classmates nor their entire school had been seriously unwell with covid or hospitalised, let alone died. They also knew that the putative virus had only been described in January 2020 and thus a vaccine produced in December 2020 could not by any stretch of the imagination have any long term safety data. Yet parents in less deprived areas seemed reluctant to question their GPs. 

From where I’m sitting, it is the parents from the most deprived areas, who showed the most wisdom in rejecting these vaccines.  

Reasons for lower confidence in vaccines

6.29. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK population had “stronger beliefs in the importance, safety, and effectiveness of vaccines” 

6.30.However, there was some decline in UK uptake of childhood immunisation programmes in the decade before 2023. Two historic controversies in childhood vaccines fed into vaccine hesitancy in the UK. The first concerned the pertussis vaccine… The second, in the 2000s, involved claims of a link between the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (often referred to as MMR) and autism. Such concerns have been entirely discredited in a number of studies conducted over decades, but wide publicity about the disproven claims led to a dip in vaccination levels and left a legacy of more widespread vaccine hesitancy in some communities. 

The Inquiry cannot have it both ways. The fall in trust for traditional vaccines is clearly related to how covid vaccination was handled and yet they are loathe to draw that conclusion; their only tool for reducing ‘vaccine hesitancy’ would appear to be trying to shut parents off from access to alternative information.

Building trust and enabling access 

6.127. Health visitors had the potential to play an important role in enhancing vaccine confidence and uptake within communities with historically lower vaccine coverage. They already play a role in discussing routine childhood vaccinations, health visitors are well placed to offer routine childhood vaccines to families who have not responded to invitations to vaccination, and could have offered vaccination to eligible pregnant women or children in the Covid-19 pandemic. 

It was indeed unfortunate that health visitors’ normal work with families stopped completely in March 2020, not because they should have been pushing covid vaccines for pregnant women and children, but because they should have been championing the needs of young children to access play facilities and toddler groups or looking out for those families at increased risk of domestic abuse. Instead many of them were co-opted to work on adult medical wards with disastrous consequences for children. 

6.128. On 1 January 2026, the UK government announced a £2 million pilot scheme which will run in five regions in England, offering the most vulnerable families routine childhood vaccination by health visitors in children’s homes. The scheme specifically aims to reach families who have “fallen through the cracks”, including those not registered with a GP. The pilot is due to be extended across England in 2027. This is a promising example of how to deliver vaccines, and reliable vaccine information, via trusted health professionals in a way which is convenient to groups who experience barriers to vaccination. If the scheme is a success, it will help enhance confidence in vaccination programmes, better enabling groups with historically lower vaccine uptake to take up the vaccine offer when the next pandemic hits.

Again, what is the point of a pilot study if you have already decided to roll it out across the whole country whether it proves ‘successful’ or not? ‘Success’ will presumably be based on the metric of vaccine uptake, not the metric of coercion. ‘When the next pandemic hits’ is also a highly charged phrase. Again, what is the point of a pilot study if you have already decided to roll it out across the whole country whether it proves ‘successful’ or not? ‘Success’ will presumably be based on the metric of vaccine uptake, not the metric of coercion. ‘When the next pandemic hits’ is also a highly charged phrase. It is almost 60 years since the Hong Kong flu but there is a certainty, amongst those who have made a business or career out of ‘pandemic preparedness, that we won’t have to wait that long to experience the joys of the next lockdown madness.

6.156. measuring vaccine hesitancy is essential to identify trends and make targeted interventions. Ongoing monitoring can also help evaluate the effectiveness of interventions – whether a particular government action built confidence in vaccine safety and reduced hesitancy. There is no “quick fix” to vaccine hesitancy and it requires “ongoing vigilance”.

If the current government get their way, this will include mandating social media algorithms that promote ‘Trusted News’ sources and demote any alternative views. So in theory not censorship but the closest thing to it. Baroness Hallett’s approach to the witness statements from HART and other dissident voices is a very clear indicator of things to come.