• smartterry

Why are We Vaccinating Children against Covid-19?

Updated: Jun 22, 2021

“It’s ‘reckless’ to vaccinate children for COVID-19,” said Former HHS coronavirus advisor, Dr. Paul Alexander on Fox News’” “Kids have a 1 in 50,000 chance of dying if they’re COVID-infected,” he added….The risk to children is so small, there is no reason to put our children in harm’s way at this point.”


In the video below Dr Mike Yeadon walks us through the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on adolescents particularly for school-age children and younger.

“I’m genuinely pro-vaccine but I’m pro-safety and these COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. Gene-based design makes your body manufacture virus spike proteins and we know that virus spike proteins trigger blood clots.”




The article below is from the American Institute Economic Research - by Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research


Why are We Vaccinating Children against Covid-19?

“We also know that masks can be potentially dangerous to children. In terms of children and Covid-19, we know children do not transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children. Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is settled science on this.

Not only is there an absence of evidence supporting the notion that children spread Covid-19 virus in any meaningful way, but there is direct evidence showing that they simply do not spread this disease! This has been shown in school settings and as published in other papers. Children typically, if infected, have asymptomatic illness. It is well-noted that asymptomatic cases are not the drivers of the pandemic; something particularly important in relation to children as they’re generally asymptomatic.

In this regard it is evident that neither children (nor asymptomatic adults) are the key drivers of SARS-CoV-2. In the rare cases where a child is infected with SARS-CoV-2, it is exceptionally rare for the child to get severely ill or die. And to reiterate, teachers are not at risk of transmission from children and schools are to be reopened immediately with no restrictions. They should have never remained closed and we knew this for one year now. The pediatric literature suggests that this is now settled science. Yet it seems that the ‘television’ medical experts and prominent US agency representatives, as well as government advisors and bureaucrats either do not read the science, do not understand the science, do not ‘get’ it, are blinded to it, or are just ignorant to the data and science. Most of what we have just stated we have known for one year now. This is not ‘new’ evidence, this has been settled for one year now, and certainly since last fall 2020.

For nearly all children under 20 years of age the risks from getting Covid-19 are exceedingly small and for children the risk is basically near zero in this population— it is the closest to zero we can get to — the cost-benefit argument against using an essentially untested vaccine is heavily in favour of risk and virtually no benefit. The potential risk of unknown and serious side effects from the brand-new and barely tested vaccines are — in truth — completely unknown. That’s because it is almost unheard of for a vaccine to be released to the public this quickly.

We already know that there is no emergency in children regarding Covid-19. And so why would Moderna Inc. seek to trial this vaccine on children with a death rate in this group of 0.003%

This really is a question of risk-management and parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a far less dangerous illness for children than influenza. Parents must be brave and be willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position and ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?’ And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a loving parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? The children should live normally, and if exposed to SARS-CoV-2 we can rest assured that in the vast majority of cases, they will have no to only mild symptoms while at the same time developing naturally acquired immunity, and harmlessly; an immunity that is definitely superior to that which might be caused by a vaccine. This approach would also accelerate the development of the much needed herd immunity about which much has been written. Vaccinating our children with a possibly harmful (untested) vaccine to them and with no basis given their risk profile, must be pushed back upon hard by parents. Parents are the voices of their children now on vaccinating their children and on the other looming disaster, Covid-19 ‘vaccine passports,’ that are as illogical and dangerous as vaccines for children under 12! Americans must stand up now to this!” by Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada and Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada - https://www.aier.org/article/why-are-we-vaccinating-children-against-covid-19/


Everything that the general public have not been told about vaccines. The information in the video below is kept from the general public. Parents should watch the video below about children and vaccines.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/vaccine-secrets



America’s Frontline Doctors Files Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against Use of COVID Vaccine in Children

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a motion (May 20th) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama requesting a temporary restraining order against the emergency use authorization (EUA) permitting using the COVID-19 vaccines in children under the age of 16, and that no further expansion of the EUAs to children under the age of 16 be granted prior to the resolution of these issues at trial.

The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law and scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections on the American people.

AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold spoke about the reasons for filing the motion:

“We doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine,” she said. “This is an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented (although suppressed and censored) and growing rapidly, and we will not support using America’s children as guinea pigs.”

We insist that the EUA not be relinquished prematurely; certainly not before trials are complete – October 31, 2022 for Moderna and April 27, 2023 for Pfizer. We are shocked at the mere discussion of this, and will not be silent while Americans are used as guinea pigs for a virus with survivability of 99.8% globally and 99.97% under age 70.

“Under age 20 it is 99.997% – ‘statistical zero’.

“There are 104 children age 0-17 who died from COVID-19 and 287 from COVID + Influenza – out of ~72 million. This equals zero risk. And we doctors won’t stand for children being offered something they do not need and of whom some unknown percentage will suffer.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-frontline-doctors-files-motion-temporary-restraining-order-against-use-covid-vaccine-children/5745896


Former U.S. Health and Human Services advisor denounces Covid vaccine for children. Alexander says he has “grave concern for our children”

“It’s ‘reckless’ to vaccinate children for COVID-19,” said Former HHS coronavirus advisor, Dr. Paul Alexander on Fox News’” “Kids have a 1 in 50,000 chance of dying if they’re COVID-infected,” he added….The risk to children is so small, there is no reason to put our children in harm’s way at this point.”

“Dr. Fauci has said many things before that he has reversed and flip-flopped on, and in this case, he makes absolutely no sense to me, and to many scientists,…“Remember the retraction of the double-mask idiocy? Remember when he said Covid is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu? Now they are talking about a third vaccine booster shot and it suggests that those in charge are flying by the seat of their pants and do not know what they are doing.”

Alexander wrote …that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) …“essentially means that all persons taking Covid vaccines at present are in a large Phase III trial. The efficacy and safety results will be known in 2-3 years and perhaps longer for the longer-term adverse effects that become known at a later date.”

His paper continues, “Exposing children to an untested Emergency Use medication implies that there is a dire risk to the children without it. There are no data to support such a potential risk.”…

“The key for parents to understand is this: These do not provide you the type of safety data to give you the level of confidence to put these vaccines in your children’s arms, because children have 70 to 80 years more life to live. They could be devastated by these vaccines if something goes wrong.”

Comment: Children are at zero risk of dying from Covid-19. The survivability rate for children under 17 is 99.997%. Doctors, however, do not rule out the possibility of long-term adverse effects from vaccination including blood clots, fertility issues or autoimmune disease. This is a risk we don’t need to take.


This is the HART statement on the use of Covid vaccines for children

HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts. www.hartgroup.org

COVID-19 vaccines are not licensed for use in children. The JCVI advises that only those children at very high risk of exposure and serious outcomes, such as older children with severe neuro-disabilities that require residential care, should be offered vaccination, with clear explanation to parents on the paucity of safety data.56 Given the rapid completion of vaccination of all high-risk groups, it is extremely concerning to hear of a possible rollout to children later this year. In so doing, we are entering into very questionable ethical terrain.



The main concerns are as follows:

● All the vaccine trials have specifically excluded children. Effects of the vaccine on children are therefore completely unknown. ● The vaccines being rolled out have only limited short-term safety data and no long-term safety data available.

● Known, potential, late-onset effects from vaccines that have not yet been ruled out include adverse immune response to infection, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease and pregnancy related problems which could take months or years to become apparent. ● Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna vaccines involve completely new mRNA vaccine technology which has never previously been given to a large population. ● AstraZeneca, while involving a standard delivery method, still involves presenting DNA fragments to the host cell which will then be taken up by the host to programme for spike protein production rather than the more traditional whole virus or viral protein technologies. The recent suspension of this vaccine in over a dozen countries over blood clot fears is cause for concern. ● Children are at extremely low risk from COVID-19 and no previously healthy child under has died. In context, COVID-19 accounted for 0.54% of all childhood deaths in the UK and 6 other countries over the last 12 months. Around 30-50% of children remain asymptomatic and admissions to hospital or intensive care are uncommon. ● a small number of children have been reported with Paediatric Inflammatory Multiorgan Syndrome but the vast majority have made a full recovery. ● It has been suggested that a very small number of children may develop ‘Long Covid’, however given the unknown risks of adverse events from vaccination, this is not a reason to proceed. ● Children are also much less likely than adults to transmit the virus, indeed living or working with young children reduces the risk of severe disease. Therefore the argument of ‘protecting others’ is not applicable. ● Limited UK trials on children are designed to look at the immune response with only 300 participants. This trial cannot assure long term safety. For all of the reasons cited above, it would be highly unethical to vaccinate children who are at such low risk from COVID-19. Any potentially long-term negative outcomes from vaccination are especially important for children, for whom so many more years lie ahead and whose immune and neurological systems are still developing. Commencing research in children, in advance of published adult long-term safety data, could be in breach of the Nuremberg Code.69 We need not look far back into history to remember the devastating harms a rushed-to-market vaccination can have. Over 1,000 children were permanently disabled with narcolepsy caused by the Pandemrix Swine Flu vaccine. Rapid rollout of a new vaccine for Dengue fever resulted in the deaths of 10 children in the Philippines, not at the time of the vaccination but months later when they next encountered the Dengue virus. To repeat any such mistakes here would be unforgivable. The immune system is phenomenally complex and still poorly understood. Experimenting on young children for a disease that carries vanishingly small risks is a road no ethical scientist should walk down. It is a clear departure from the precautionary principle and the scientific experts at HART strongly advise against it.

www.hartgroup.org



4 views0 comments