iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Jonathan Howard’s October 1, 2026 commentary argues that if the BMJ re-examines institutions it believes misled the public during the pandemic, it should also scrutinize its own publication of two May 2021 opinion pieces about COVID-19 vaccination for children. That is Howard’s editorial-accountability argument—not a formal investigation, clinical guideline, or neutral finding that the articles were wrong.
What Howard is asking the BMJ to examine
Howard’s point is about consistency in editorial scrutiny: a journal that revisits other institutions’ pandemic-era claims should also review its own decisions. He writes, “However, if the BMJ wants to once again revisit venerable institutions that misled the public in 2021, they should look inwards at the BMJ.” The line is a pointed opinion by Howard, a neurologist and psychiatrist writing in Science-Based Medicine, not a finding issued by the BMJ or a separate inquiry.
The focus is two opinion articles published by the BMJ in May 2021. They addressed related questions, but they were written by different groups and made distinct arguments. Howard criticizes their treatment of vaccination; his assessments should be distinguished from what the original authors actually argued.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What the two May 2021 articles argued
The May 7 piece: emergency authorization for child vaccination
Wesley Pegden, Vinay Prasad, and Stefan Baral argued that the benefit-risk balance for emergency authorization of mass vaccination in children differed from that for adults. Howard criticizes the piece for minimizing vaccination’s benefits and leaving out relevant context. He calls it “fact-free,” but that is his characterization, not an independently established description of the article.
#1 Best Overall
The date matters when considering the debate’s evidence and policy context. A cited report on the adolescent BNT162b2 trial states that the FDA expanded emergency use authorization to people aged 12 and older on May 10, 2021; the report appeared on May 27, 2021. That chronology concerns adolescents aged 12 and older and a specific trial report. By itself, it does not settle the broader policy question or establish that every criticism Howard makes is correct.
The May 13 piece: the possible population-level role of childhood vaccination
Jennie S. Lavine, Ottar Bjornstad, and Rustom Antia considered whether vaccinating children might be necessary to halt the pandemic. Their argument was conditional: “Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic.” They also reasoned that, in that scenario, viral circulation might be desirable.
This was conditional reasoning about a possible scenario, not an unconditional prediction or an established outcome. The May 13 argument should not be collapsed into the May 7 article’s discussion of emergency authorization and the different benefit-risk balance for children and adults.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →How to read the disagreement
The clearest way to assess Howard’s criticism is to separate the original claims from his evaluation of them:
- Policy question: The May 7 article addressed emergency authorization for mass vaccination of children and how its benefit-risk balance differed from adults’. The May 13 article considered childhood vaccination’s potential role in stopping pandemic transmission.
- Assumptions: The May 13 authors made their conclusion conditional on childhood infections and adult re-exposures remaining typically mild. Do not read the conclusion without that condition.
- Type of claim: The May 13 piece offered conditional reasoning about what might follow in a particular scenario. Howard’s terms “fact-free” and “misled” are judgments that require attribution to him, not neutral descriptions.
- Evidence and timing: The adolescent trial report and FDA authorization chronology are specific to ages 12 and older in May 2021. They provide context, not a complete retrospective adjudication of either opinion piece.
Howard’s article is therefore best understood as a challenge to the BMJ’s editorial accountability: should its own 2021 opinions receive the same retrospective attention it directs at other institutions? Readers can consider that question while recognizing that Howard’s commentary is not itself a formal review of the underlying evidence.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this commentary does not establish
The argument does not provide current vaccine advice, resolve present-day recommendations, or determine what should have been authorized for every child in every jurisdiction. The material discussed here concerns two publications from May 2021 and a trial report about adolescents aged 12 and older. Current clinical guidance is a separate question and depends on the relevant country and population.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
