According to the findings of German research, one in every 780 children under the age of five who received the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine was hospitalized with severe adverse events (SAE), and one in every 200 children had ‘symptoms that were currently ongoing and thus of unknown significance.’
The study, “Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years,” was published in JAMA on Tuesday, two days before the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend COVID-19 to be included in the 2023 childhood immunization schedule.
Participants in this retrospective cohort study were German parents or caregivers who had enrolled their children in a Covid-19 vaccination program at 21 outpatient care facilities. The survey used in the study was conducted in a secure online environment. From April 14th, 2022, till May 9th, 2022, a total of 19 000 email addresses were contacted using data from vaccine registration databases.
Daily Sceptic reported:
It concluded that the symptoms reported after Pfizer vaccination were “comparable overall” to those for other vaccines. Let’s see.
- Any symptoms: 62% higher
- Musculoskeletal (muscles and bones) symptoms: 155% higher
- Dermatologic (skin) symptoms: 118% higher
- Otolaryngologic (ears, nose and throat) symptoms: 537% higher
- Cardiovascular (heart etc.): 36% higher
- Gastrointestinal (stomach etc.): 54% higher
It calls these “modestly elevated.” (Note that not all are statistically significant and some confidence intervals are wide, see below.)
In 0.5% of the children (40 of 7,806) symptoms were “currently ongoing and thus of unknown significance”. This is in a study with a 2-4 month follow-up period. That means 0.5% of children had an adverse effect that lasted for weeks or months. In two cases (0.03%), symptoms were confirmed to have lasted longer than 90 days.
Ten children were hospitalised with reported serious adverse events (SAEs), compared to zero with the other vaccines. This reported as 0.1%, as it is out of 7,806. However, the study also states that no hospitalisations were reported for children administered the low dosage of 3 μg. Since it also tells us that 6,033 children received at least one dose of over 3 μg (or unknown dosage), the rate in the relevant cohort is closer to 0.2%, or around one in 500.
Four of the hospitalisations were for cardiovascular injury; one child was hospitalised after both doses for this reason. Four were pulmonary (lung) related. Symptoms of the hospitalised children lasted an average of 12.2 days and a maximum of 60 days. None reported a myocarditis diagnosis. Mercifully, no deaths were reported in this relatively small sample.
The mortality rate in under-20s has been shown to be 0.0003%. The figure for under-fives will be even lower. But even if we unrealistically assume this is the mortality rate for under-fives and the vaccines reduce it to zero, this still means that at least 500 children are hospitalised for every life the vaccines save. In reality the ratio will be much worse than this.
Yet the EU has just authorised the jab for this age group, and the U.S. is adding it to its childhood vaccination schedule. Madness.
More at: DailySignal.com
Who Owns the CDC?
Many of you are understandably outraged at the CDC’s recent unanimous decision to add the COVID-19 vaccines to the pediatric schedule. The decision is completely indefensible, and will result in millions of children being forced to be vaccinated for no benefit and substantial risk. For those who have any doubts this will happen, Tucker Carlson eloquently refuted those arguments:
In democratic republics, it should not be possible for unelected groups to forcefully dictate the lives of citizens without those policies being legalized by the legislative process. Unfortunately, our bureaucracy has bypassed that process by allowing committees (whose members are appointed rather than being elected democratically) to craft “guidelines” (as this is the limit of their authority), and then have the rest of the government (and media) treat those guidelines as law. Unfortunately, the members of these committees tend to be individuals who have been bribed and inevitably arrive at conclusions that support their sponsors.
In the case of the CDC, they have come up with a rather simple solution to legalizing corruption. If you view their website, you will frequently encounter this comforting disclaimer:
“CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”
To allow widespread corruption while simultaneously maintaining the veracity of this statement, there are two simple loopholes that can be utilized The first is to use a third party to hide the money and the second is to directly profit from pharmaceutical sales.
In 1983, Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” In 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention so that CDC could obtain additional funding for its work, or put differently create a third party to pass money along to the CDC.
Comically enough, many other agencies within the federal government, including the CIA and the NIH, also have their own foundations that were also created by congress to allow them to access corporate
bribes donations that are not subject to legal oversight such as freedom of information act requests). Not surprisingly, many of the directors of these foundations like their peers in government, often follow a revolving door and end up in high-paying executive roles at major pharmaceutical companies after leading these foundations.
More at: amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/