"Following the Science" on Vaccinating Children for Covid-19
See also: Trusting/Listening To The Experts
Careful, or by the end of this article this could be you as well
Guys, I’m in a bit of pickle here.
People keep telling me to Follow the Science — and, alternatively, to Trust/Listen to the Experts. But yet the more I Follow the Science, the more I seem to be in disagreement with the Experts telling me to Follow the Science.
It’s getting confusing. What does one do?
See, the experts are saying we should go for our lives with the jibby jab — no hesitation, no questions (unless they are questions that can easily and ultimately be answered in the affirmative). In fact, not just go for it for our lives, but also now the lives of our children!
They are pretty convincing as well, because surely they wouldn’t be giving such a potentially generation altering/diminishing directive if it wasn’t reached by Following The Science.
But then we have The Science… and this is where things get confusing.
What do we mean by Science? Well, the general consensus seems to be that Science is expressed through the peer-review journal process, which retains in the eyes of many a religious-like infallibility.
As I have tried to make clear on multiple times to multiple unwilling listeners: just because something appears to us as peer-reviewed Science, it doesn’t make it automatically worth Following. This should be obvious, because we have academic articles that come to virtually opposite conclusions on virtually every major scientific issue relating to this pandemic.
Once you arrive at this point of scientific singularity, it is hard to conclude otherwise that the process of arriving at Agreed Science, which should in turn be Followed, has become fundamentally broken and corrupted. But that existential scientific crisis is one to be grappled with another time.
Thus, while the incorruptibility of peer-review — great in theory, no arguments there — seems highly debatable in reality, let us take it as gospel for now. To play by the rules that have been set out for us, in other words.
As an ideal starting point for our explorations, we have this recently published journal article, which is appropriately titled:
A good question to ask by the authors, if I may offer an unsolicited opinion — perhaps one of the most relevant questions one can be asking at the present moment, given the aforementioned potential for the alteration and even diminishment of an entire generation. For what it is worth: the lead author is 83 and has over 90 publications on a quite impressive range of scientific fields — so that’s a hell of a lot of Science Following for one person.
You can read a great analysis of the methodology and the implications of this article here.
Given you almost certainly won’t read that analysis, here is the gist. The article undertakes a risk/benefit analysis that assesses the potential lives saved by mass vaccinating young children for Covid-19 against the potential injury and loss of life of such vaccination. This is achieved by looking at the available data for deaths from vaccinating the elderly, for which we have a much clearer (if still highly cloudy) picture emerging.
This is the basic premise of the article. We know that the elderly make up the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths. If the data now shows us that considerably more of the elderly are dying from the vaccine compared to the virus, imagine how much worse the risk-to-benefit ratio will be for children — who make up virtually none of the deaths from Covid. And that’s before we factor in the cost of any medium-to-long-term impacts, remembering they still have their full lives in front of them.
After undertaking the risk/benefit analysis for the elderly and subsequent estimation for children, they came up with the following conclusion:
“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
In other words: the risk to benefit ratio for vaccinating children will be much higher than that of vaccinating the elderly, which already appears to be resulting in 5 times the number of deaths as are being caused by Covid.
Yikes!
Look, that was only a hypothetical. We don’t have any actual data that shows such a potential negative impact on children after Covid vaccination, do we?
Well… we have this recently released peer reviewed article in the ominously titled ‘Current Problems in Cardiology”.
What is the Current Problem in Cardiology being reported here? Well: upon analysing reported adverse events in the United State’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS), the authors found this:
“Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with ∼80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.”
19 times? Well… at least it wasn’t 20. That might have been a real game changer.
That elevated rate particularly for males? Well… lucky it is in boys, not girls, coz they are stronger, so at least they can handle it.
Ok, so I may have left a few key details out there. The study did only find that 1% of these excess cases of myocarditis lead to death, and only 2 recorded deaths below the age of 21.
Only two deaths? Phew. That could almost be in the realms of being explained away as a necessary sacrifice for the Greater Good.
Unless: we happened to stumble upon more reliable mortality data, which actually suggested the problem may be more widespread and serious than what was being reported to a flawed and voluntary self-reporting system…
Now, while I hesitate to share alternative media articles with provocative headlines, given they risk being dismissed outright as misinformation by the mainstream-dependent, this example is compelling enough to take the risk. Here is the EXPLOSIVE headline:
Sure, red flags will inevitably be raised by many for a media outline that has tin-foil-hat laced headlines like “If You Have Recently Developed Tinnitus, It Is Possibly Because 5G Has Been Turned on Nearby” (for what is worth, I have tinnitus from my Meniere’s, and it can definitely be set off by EMF exposure).
But any bias this outlet may have doesn’t influence the data they are basing their Expose on: because science is, at the end of the day, based on data — and this particular data comes directly from an independent report for the UK Government. And it does indeed appear to show what the headline implies:
“…the number of deaths between June 19th 2021 and September 17th 2021 among teens aged 15 and over were 47% higher than the number of deaths in this age group during the same period in 2020, and the increase in deaths began at precisely the same time teens started receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.”
It is also of note that the same outlet published a follow up report one week later, breaking this data down by gender and suggesting that deaths in teenage boys specifically have increased by 63%.
Standard disclaimer here: CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. There may well be other factors at play here that explain the spike… like, um, well I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any!
Can someone please find out what those other responsible variables might be for this correlation quickly, because otherwise this dangerous misinformation might cause people to start asking dangerous questions. Because even the inevitable attempted debunkings by the fact checkerati struggled to find anything except cheap slurs and strawmen to counter these claims.
To be fair, not all the Experts are singing from the same hymn sheet — in fact, an increasing amount are starting to go off script.
For example, we also have this expert opinion from literal vaccine expert, advocate and former walker in the same corridors as Bill Gates Geert Vanden Bossche — who is suggesting that not only are we unnecessarily harming children through mass vaccination, but we are also putting ourselves at danger:
“… mass vaccination of children will inevitably obstruct the process of building herd immunity in the population. While unvaccinated children who contract Covid-19 disease in the vast majority of cases don’t suffer severe disease and contribute to the buildup of herd immunity in the population, mass vaccination campaigns in children will prevent them from contributing to herd immunity…”
Hold up. Why should we care about his opinion? Didn’t he jump ship early on, speaking up against the vaccine rollout — probably the main former vaccine advocate to speak out — and was widely and soundly debunked (by both the pro and anti-vax sides) as a fear-mongering opportunist?
Well, yes he did (and was), actually; I wrote about him here FYI. And that’s why he may be the most authentic voice to speak on the rollout thus far: because he was basically the only one to actually put his neck on the line and sound the alarm — that mass vaccination of healthy and young people may actually lead to greater numbers of infections and hence extend the duration of the pandemic. And, much to the surprise and dismay of many, he has turned out to be exactly right!
In fact, this is exactly what another recently published study found (and which I discussed in more detail previously): countries with higher vaccination rates actually appear to have slightly higher Covid infections rates. Maybe Bossche-man was just Following the Science the whole time, and those who sought to smear and debunk him were doing otherwise?
As I mentioned at the start: quite a pickle we are in, isn’t it, fellow Science Followers?
Maybe it is time we started Trusting/Listening To new Experts.