This is all it takes to give kids an experimental drug???
This is NOT the way to figure out if vaccines are safe and effective
Moderna got jealous today.
It had heard all about how its rival Pfizer is already in line to have its mRNA ‘vaccine’ approved by the FDA for kids 5-11 years old on November 5th. So Moderna put out a press release about the ‘success’ of its own ‘trials’ on kids 6-11.
The evidence provided by both Pfizer1 and Moderna2 is so skimpy and so pathetic that a thinking person would not trust it enough to try a new restaurant much less to give an experimental drug to their child.
What do I mean?
Moderna’s trial has only 4,753 participants. Pfizer’s has even fewer - 2,268. Of those, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds got the shot (the rest got a placebo).
Based on these tiny sample sizes, Pfizer announced that it’s ‘vaccine’ is 91% effective. This is based on 19 total cases of COVID (3 in the vaccine group & 16 in the control group). Oh, and the control group had more symptoms and 10 of them even had fevers!
This is pathetic. Three thousand kids and ten had mildly elevated temperatures!!!
Obviously, what is needed is some form of experimental drug!
The hospitalization and death rates from COVID for children of this age are so vanishingly rare as to be nearly incalculable. Certainly, death rates are well under one-in-a-million. In fact, at least five times as many children died in the last flu season as from COVID (four months of flu in 2018/19 vs 21 months of COVID).
And hospitalization rate are much lower for COVID than for flu (see chart below - from CDC data).
For kids, COVID is a cold. Nothing more.
The hospitalization rates (from the CDC3) for 5-11 year olds is so low you can barely even see it on their graphs:
A quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation says that, even if these ‘vaccines’ reduce hospitalizations by 95% (which they don’t), in order to get enough data to reach significance (p=0.05 or lower) it would take AT LEAST 600,000 kids in the ‘vaccine’ group - and about that many in a control group.
Read that again: In order to actually DEMONSTRATE whether their vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths in 5-11 year olds, these biotech firms would need trials of well over one million kids.
So, instead of doing a real trial, they just give the kids the jab and then measure circulating serum antibodies.
Actual transcript of an imaginary meeting of Pfizer scientists:
“Hey! Look at that! We give them a shot and they made some antibodies… surely this is the same thing as protection from hospitalization and death, right? How could we be sure? Wait, what!!!? In order to be sure we would have to do a careful study on more than a million kids?!?!? I think the antibody thing and fewer sniffles is good enough, don’t you? Yeah, me too. Let’s just figure out how to get it out on the market and start making money.”
They won’t do the work, they don’t want to.
The argument that vaccinating children protects adults doesn’t hold water, either. Large studies of teachers from the UK, Sweden, and Florida show that teachers that had in-person classes with elementary age students were less likely to end up in the hospital or die than instructors who taught online only! Infection rates were slightly higher in the in-person groups…. But I would take a slightly increased chance at the sniffles if it meant I was significantly less likely to end up in the hospital. (Just one example of these ‘in-person teachers are protected’ type studies from Scotland4.)
In addition, adult-to-adult and adult-to-child transmission appears much more likely than child-to-adult. Even in the CDC’s (terrible) Georgia mask study, they only condition that had any benefit was teachers wearing masks, student mask wearing was irrelevant. Plus, this5 from a huge study in the journal "Pediatrics": "No instances of child-to-adult transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were reported within schools."
Back to the vaccine itself.
Even giving the vaccines every benefit of the doubt, the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) has shown that the rate of myocarditis after ‘vaccine’ in older kids (12-17) is at least 1-in-5000 (ignoring other injuries). Because these vaccine injuries have been shown to be higher and higher in younger and younger patients, these terrible risk/reward ratio will likely be even more abysmal in this lower age range.
Kids would be many times more likely to end up in the hospital due to a vaccine injury than from COVID!!!!
Giving a six year old child a drug with a 1-in-5,000 chance to send them to the hospital to prevent a disease with a 1-in-20,000 chance to send them to the hospital makes no sense.
We are risking vaccine injuries in order to prevent the sniffles!!!
(I am really not exaggerating here.)
This is like a shark repellant spray that has been shown to work in adults to prevent injuries and deaths from shark bites (this repellant has since been shown to wash off quickly, but that is another story).
Now the company is going to ‘test’ it to see if it works on kids.
Well, it turns out that kids, for whatever reasons, just aren’t attacked by sharks.
When they try the spray on kids, a bunch of them get terrible blisters and some end up in the hospital (most are just in for a for a short while… not that big a deal, right?).
The tests that would show whether or not this shark repellant really help kids avoid shark attacks would require giving it to every beach-going kid for the next two years, so the company instead squirts it onto a few kids to see what happens.
Using the universal ‘smell-test’ metric, the company shows that, ‘Yep, they smell 91% similar to the way adults did when we sprayed them!”
And so they put the spray on the market.
The advertising is easy:
“Give your kid our Shark Repellant Spray!!!! You don’t want them to get bitten by a shark do you???”
What parent wants their kid to die from shark bites???
Did you know that the clinical trial for the polio vaccine had more than 2,000,000 participants??? Because they actually wanted to know if the vaccine was safe and effective - not just rush it out. (and polio is MUCH more dangerous to kids than c19)
FDA panel gives go ahead to vax for ages 5-11. Vote was 17-0 (with one abstention). One doctor described it as 'terrifying' to make such a huge decision on such a tiny sample size... but did it anyway. Not a good day. A few more hurdles - but will almost certainly be approved by Nov 5th. https://www.newser.com/story/312647/fda-panel-endorses-covid-shots-for-kids.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_top