Kathleen Logan
From:
Amanda Kvalsvig <[email address]>
Sent:
Friday, 9 July 2021 6:21 PM
To:
Kathleen Logan; Michael Baker; Andrew Becroft; Leah Haines
Subject:
RE: Please help Andrew Becroft & OCC with interpreting vaccine
spike protein claims
Follow Up Flag:
Fol ow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Kia ora Kathleen
I’ve now had a chance to look into the evidence about cardiovascular side effects of Pfizer vaccine in
children. (More specifical y, the concern is around myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle,
and pericarditis, inflammation of the lining around the heart. I have not seen rigorous studies of
spike proteins). Here is some background info:
1. Because the Pfizer vaccine is currently being rol ed out in the 12-15 age group in the US, al
unusual il nesses occurring in vaccinated children are reported and investigated, in case they
might have a link to vaccination.
2. Earlier this year the Pfizer vaccine was tested in a trial of 2260 adolescents aged 12-15. The
trial had an extremely rigorous design (randomized, placebo-control ed, observer-blinded).
The investigators found that the observed vaccine efficacy was 100% (ie, none of the
vaccinated children developed Covid-19). There were no vaccine-related serious adverse
events.
3. Since that time, over 2.5 mil ion doses have been given to 12-15 year-olds in the US and
surveil ance has reported no detectable increase in myocarditis or pericarditis in this
population.
4. A recent US case series reported a finding of myocarditis and /or pericarditis (they are hard
to distinguish) in 7 adolescents (al male) aged 14-19 years who had been vaccinated. This
finding has sparked a discussion about whether vaccination caused the myocarditis or
whether it was coincidental. The picture is complex because myocarditis is normal y (ie, pre-
Covid) a rare but wel -recognised occurrence in this age group, and it is also a known
complication of Covid-19 infection. The 7 adolescents al responded to minimal y-invasive
treatment. As a result of this report, instances of myocarditis or pericarditis are being closely
monitored in the adolescent US population and elsewhere.
Putting al of that together with the known risks of serious il ness and death from Covid-19 infection,
it is clear that overal , vaccinated children are experiencing better outcomes than children with
Covid-19 infection. Given the large numbers being vaccinated currently, we would expect that even
extremely rare vaccine effects wil ‘declare themselves’ in the next months and we can expect that
the question mark about myocarditis wil be clarified soon. A further point to note is that even if
myocarditis is established as a known complication, if cases are treatable (as in the case series
above), it may stil be in children’s best interests to receive the vaccine (compared with the risk of
becoming il with Covid-19).
My own approach to people expressing concerns about vaccine safety in children would be to:
- Acknowledge the concern as coming from a place of wanting to keep children safe.
- Not engage in detailed discussions until the evidence is in.
- Note that children receiving Covid-19 vaccines around the world are being very closely
fol owed. So far the evidence is reassuring, but if that changes, the vaccine strategy wil also
change.
1
More coming soon about the broader implications, but I thought it would be useful to answer that
specific query first.
Ngā mihi
Amanda
From: Amanda Kvalsvig
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2021 5:30 PM
To: Kathleen Logan
Subject: RE: Please help Andrew Becroft & OCC with interpreting vaccine spike protein claims
Hi again Kathleen
Thanks for sending these through. In our editorial we’re aiming to contextualise decisions in terms of
children’s wel being, population wel being, and equity. So that is the chal enge we have: to keep al
of these elements in mind.
More soon,
Amanda
From: Kathleen Logan <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2021 4:34 PM
To: Amanda Kvalsvig <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Please help Andrew Becroft & OCC with interpreting vaccine spike protein claims
Thank you Amanda, I real y appreciate your response, and look forward to comments from you,
thanks. We can hold off further replies to people until Friday.
Attached is something that has been sent to us.
We were also sent confidential y another paper in draft that is yet to be submitted for publication
(about increase in certain harms from lockdown).
Our Life in Lockdown report, (Chapter 5 page 40) indicated (with a rough and ready analysis) that
children’s different experiences il uminated the inequities among those in low versus high
socioeconomic groups (based on school decile because that’s al we had). We are concerned about
inequitable impacts of lockdown too.
Thanks for your hard work.
Ngā mihi
Kathleen Logan
From: Amanda Kvalsvig <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2021 2:59 PM
To: Kathleen Logan <[email address]>; Michael Baker <[email address]>
Cc: Andrew Becroft <[email address]>; Leah Haines <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Please help Andrew Becroft & OCC with interpreting vaccine spike protein claims
Kia ora Kathleen
It’s good to hear from you. Covid-19 vaccination in children is such important and emotive issue, isn’t
it. Real y good to think together about an evidence-informed approach.
I’ve been concerned for some time about exactly this type of controversy around risks. I’m currently
drafting an editorial, together with Dr Jin Russel (paediatrician at Starship), in which we discuss how
to integrate decisions about children into upcoming decisions in the Covid-19 response; we also
consider the vaccine evidence that we have to date. The editorial covers the points you mention so it
2
might be useful if we share some notes from the editorial in confidence. Jin and I are stil chasing
down the best evidence on some points but we can aim to have some comments back to you on
Friday. We’l discuss with Michael and with Nikki Turner as wel , to get a good spread of advice.
Would that plan be helpful to you? YES PLEASE!
In the meantime you could simply say that you’re seeking advice, as no decisions on child
vaccinations need to be made in the next 1-3 days and the issue needs careful consideration.
Ngā mihi
Amanda
From: Kathleen Logan <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2021 10:37 AM
To: Amanda Kvalsvig <[email address]>; Michael Baker <[email address]>
Cc: Andrew Becroft <[email address]>; Leah Haines <[email address]>
Subject: Please help Andrew Becroft & OCC with interpreting vaccine spike protein claims
Importance: High
Morena Amanda & Michael
I’m sorry to bother you when I know you are busy, but we need your help please for the Children’s
Commissioners’ public responses. To date, we have supported the official information channels via
the Ministry of Health. But. .
We are starting to receive letters to the OCC opposing vaccination of children from scientists and
clinicians, not just worried public, for specific reasons:
These are due to several factors they claim:
Until 2023, vaccines are stil experimental for children due to lack of long-term safety
evidence
Covid spike protein expression has potential severe side effects in cardiovasculature tissues,
(eg myocarditis and pericarditis), organs and lung tissue that can cause death or long term il
health
Children are otherwise are healthy – asymptomatic and do not transmit the virus (much / at
al ?) compared with high risks of death to other population groups who warrant
experimental vaccination
(The sum of those points = unwarranted risks to individual children of the vaccine)
Children can’t consent to participate in research in and of themselves and rely on adults
around them.
We should therefore wait until we have more information on the safety of the vaccine for
children, as it is in their best interests.
Those who oppose vaccines due to unknown risks fol owing fast-tracked approval processes have a
good point, and I can’t refute them.
Another angle we can take is to say we can’t talk about children in isolation of their families.
Populations are vaccinated to protect everyone – so children being vaccinated even when we don’t
know long term risks (on them as individuals), are also to protect their families and baby siblings. We
know the severe risks of il ness and death from Covid infection on babies and older people in their
families warrant vaccination. Children without healthy parents also bear a burden.
There are many more factors to weigh up than unknown, theoretical, long-term risks of vaccinations
on otherwise healthy individual children.
This could be a line we take at the OCC, but we need assurance that the potential side effects of the
vaccine do not, in fact, pose an unnecessary risk for children (aged 5-17).
3
Thank you for your support for the Commissioner in interpreting the science behind these claims,
especial y the spike protein expression side effects in the cardiovascular system.
Ngā mihi
Dr Kathleen Logan
Lead, Education Advocacy Work Programme
Chair, Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Senior Advisor, Strategy Rights & Advice
Te Tari o te Kaikomihana mō ngā Tamariki
Office of the Children’s Commissioner www.occ.org.nz
P: XX-XXX XXXX | M: XXXXXXXXXX
------------------------------- The Office of the Children's Commissioner advocates for the best interests of
al children and young people in New Zealand and looks to ensure al of their rights are respected and
upheld. This email is confidential. If it is not intended for you please do not read, distribute or copy it
or any attachments. Please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message and
any attachments. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may
not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the Children's Commissioner. -------------------------------
4
