Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19 At All?
Lets Do Journal Club: A 2021 REDACTED Toxicology Report Article
Even if you do not have children and have no parenting plans, childhood COVID-19 vaccines will impact your life because their recent addition to CDC recommendations applies equally to children and adults.
And even if you never read a research paper, this may be a useful exercise to see how doctors learn to read articles, critique them, and then determine whether they will reject or accept the paper’s findings. Go along with this and see if you agree with my conclusions, remembering the Hippocratic Oath to Do No Harm. Because we had our own “Journal Club” once a week through years of training, and were taught how to think for ourselves when reading a paper.
Bear in mind the seriousness of the issues, because by being placed on the CDC's Child Vaccine Schedule as of Thursday, Big Pharma is set to be exempt from both pediatric and adult lawsuits. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. nailed it in a Tweet two days ago that hit many with a resounding revelation. In conclusion, he stated,
That's why they went after our children.
But wait. Like an eagle, let’s backtrack and get a bird’s eye view of the whole topic and review the manner in which scientific papers and clinical trials using COVID-19 shots were handled. Based on these issues, one can not help but wonder:
Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19 Anyway?
That was the scientific question and title of the Toxicology Reports paper that Kostoff, et al asked in 2021. Now, as seen by the big, bright RED across their paper depicting that it is RETRACTED, maybe it is worth a quick view, before it is entirely REMOVED (because some articles have not only been retracted but entirely removed):
Published in August, 2021, the scientific article with this title is seen in Toxicology Reports 8 (2021) 1665–1684 | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X?via%3Dihub
After this review, we will briefly look at the reason why it was retracted. According to the authors:
Here is a list of problematic issues described clinical trials for COVID shots:
For adolescents and children, the studies were a small size, therefore had a poor predictive power.
Their patient population samples did not represent the total population.
They were very short-term (a few months) studies, only lasting a few months.
Because of their short study duration, it was impossible to observe any long-term effects including the later development of heart problems, infertility, or autism.
The clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of an increased predisposition to serious diseases.
Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address any long-term effects that may have occurred. If serious long-term effects were missed only to resurface later, this burden would potentially be borne by children and adolescents for decades.
The authors continue to note that the most vulnerable are over age 65, and a novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed a very conservative 5 times greater number of deaths after each inoculation vs deaths after COVID-19 itself.
The younger a child, the lower the risk of death from COVID-19; this is a dramatic trend. For the young, the long-term vaccine effects would increase their risk-benefit ratio, i.e., exposing them more to risk than to benefit, perhaps substantially.
Here is their retracted graph. Pause for a moment before scrolling down below the bar graph, and note: what questions do we have again, regarding COVID shots in our youth?
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
The authors cite the following below their graph (my highlights):
Fig. 1. COVID-19 Deaths per capita by age in the United States (as of Jun 5, 2021). Population-based on U.S. CDC WONDER Bridge-Race Population Estimate 2019. Data obtained from https://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.html on 6/15/2021. Provisional COVID-19 deaths based on CDC data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics for the period 1/1/2020 – 6/5/2021. Data obtained from https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku on 6/10/2021.R.N. Kostoff et al.
My Notes: Children don’t die. We don’t subject all of them to a vaccine with grave side effects unless the risk outweighs the benefit. In other words, what are the benefits of not vaccinating them? Since they don’t die in large numbers, they are not at risk of dying from COVID. Therefore, the inoculations provide only risk. And risk = harm.
Kostoff et al classified vaccine reactions into five categories: hyperinflammation, hypercoagulation, allergy, and neurological. Citing the CDC-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that was admittedly not analyzed by the CDC and which was not discussed in depth at either ACIP meeting this past week, many symptoms and diseases were attributable to vaccines.
Stepping back to note another paper they recommended in what they described as an “excellent” review published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research by Seneff and Nigh (which is still available, and not retracted) entitled,
Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 by Seneff and Nigh
The first sentences in this paper state,
Operation Warp Speed brought to market in the United States two mRNA vaccines, produced by Pfizer and Moderna. Interim data suggested high efficacy for both of these vaccines, which helped legitimize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. However, the exceptionally rapid movement of these vaccines through controlled trials and into mass deployment raises multiple safety concerns.
Seneff and Nigh describe acute and potential long-term problems resulting from the COVID-19 inoculations, showing potential relationships to blood disorders like leukemia, neurodegenerative, and autoimmune disease. The authors also discussed the relevance of prion-protein-related amino acid sequences within the spike protein.
Seneff and Nigh state at the end of their article:
We finish by addressing a common point of debate, namely, whether or not these vaccines could modify the DNA of those receiving the vaccination. While there are no studies demonstrating definitively that this is happening, we provide a plausible scenario, supported by previously established pathways for transformation and transport of genetic material, whereby injected mRNA could ultimately be incorporated into germ cell DNA for transgenerational transmission.
Their Conclusion:
We conclude with our recommendations regarding surveillance that will help to clarify the long-term effects of these experimental drugs and allow us to better assess the true risk/benefit ratio of these novel technologies.
THE REASONS FOR THE RETRACTION:
In Pfizer’s proposed clinical trials for the mRNA “vaccine” (Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728), the focus was on determining 1) adverse events/symptoms, 2) SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibody levels, 3) SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 binding antibody levels and anti-RBD binding antibody levels, and 4) effectiveness. These metrics are all related to safety at the symptom level and performance.
The article has been retracted at the request of the Founding Editor, Prof. Lawrence H. Lash, on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable: https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf.
The focus of the paper is on a critically important public health issue. As such, it is essential that the presentation be accurate and balanced. Additional external review of this paper following publication concluded that it demonstrates inappropriate bias in multiple ways.
The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.
Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.
The Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal is here: please see (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal).
MY INTERPRETATION: The paper was retracted because the authors refused to call the COVID injections “vaccines”, instead referring to the injections as “inoculations”. Therefore, I believe the paper should not have been retracted and the scientific debate should have opened up to not only the actual definition of a “vaccine” (and why the definition was made to accommodate mRNA genetic material), but also the process by which it was introduced into the entire population. The authors question is valid as to why we are giving COVID shots to children and exposing them to mostly harm and risk with very little benefit, when they are overwhelmingly not going to suffer harm or die from getting COVID.
MY SPECIAL COMMENTARY AKA WHAT I REALLY THINK:
Paid subscribers get to comment and starting November 1, 2022, will receive my special commentaries at the end of each article. Thank you for supporting my writings. Funds go straight into our business account to help fund the needy who need an appointment.
This retraction of a paper that refuses to call the injection a “vaccine” should have sparked public demand for an answer. While I disagree with the retraction, it exemplifies to the public how even scientific papers are subject being censored, removed, and/or entirely omitted from databases.
Many of us have used links to papers on COVID or COVID-related repurposed drug therapies, only to find the link goes nowhere or to an “error” site. I’ll keep my eyes out for more on that, but if you see such a link, please either post it in a reply to this article.
Expect more of this in the future, with the elimination of web-based material and an increased need for paper books and articles that may stand the test of time.
In this regard, I refer you to a book, Turtles All The Way Down: Science Myth Book, (that I have yet to read), highly recommended by Steve Kirsch last Thursday, October 20, 2022 as a great down-to-earth introduction to the world of vaccines. See my Substack on this book, with a general transcript of Steve Kirsch’s Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) weekly meeting. Held on Thursdays at 4:00 pm PST, my Substack is a 5-7 minute read for a one-hour show.
Starting November 1, 2022, my Information Acquisition articles of transcript notes from videos, chats, or Zoom meetings will be by paid subscription ~ thank you for your support in this regard!
We should not only question why we are calling it a “vaccine”, but why we are giving it to children at all.
REFERENCES
Ronald N. Kostoff, Daniela Calina, Darja Kanducm Michael B. Briggs,
Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos, Andrey A. Svistunov, Aristidis Tsatsakis. Toxicology Reports 8 (2021) 1665–1684 Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? Toxicology Reports 8 (2021) 1665–1684. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S221475002100161X?token=C2466C4B26C0F96468AC08991F1B2899ED4A990622267E04A10BBB38BFF42EB940ECD26E89564FA64140A563BA19204D&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20221022083738
S. Seneff, and G. Nigh, Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. Int. J. Vacc. Theory Practice Res. 2 (1) (2021) 38–79. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23 . Note author biographies below.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES:
Stephanie Seneff, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Greg Nigh, Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA
Naturopathic Oncology, Immersion Health, Portland, OR 97214, USA
Thank you for reading my writings.
Get the Substack App!
For readers and writers, get the Substack App,. Currently available only on iPhone or iPad 12+: https://webcatalog.io/apps/substack/
What do you do if you get COVID?
Get My FREE Guidebook to Emergency COVID Care - with Your Personal Tracker™ at https:COVIDmasterplan.com - it is at the top of the page OR put it straight into your shopping cart here: https://covid-kits.com/ols/products/covid-care-tracker
This is a LIMITED OFFER UNTIL OCTOBER 31, 2022. Then it is just $4.99. It contains your shopping list for supplements, prescriptions, foods, and a time schedule of what to take and when, should you get sick. This is a perfect gift if you are single or have parents who are not internet-savy. You can print it out for them - perhaps in black and white to save ink - and have them pay attention to the 7 am to 12MN schedule on last two pages of the Personal Tracker™.
For Health Care Professionals: Take Steve Kirsch’s Survey
If you work in healthcare, please consider filling out Steve Kirsch’s survey. Tell your doctors and nurses. Steve posts:
You will be asked how many reportable events you've OBSERVED vs. FILED for both non-COVID and then the COVID vaccines since you first became aware of the VAERS system. A "VAERS-reportable" event is a significant adverse event that in your opinion should be reported to the VAERS system in order to allow health authorities to accurately assess the safety profile of a vaccine.
Steve askss that if you are NOT a healthcare professional, do NOT fill out the survey. If you ARE a health-care professional, fill out the form here: https://airtable.com/shrQZWaacOu9j2rhh?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
What is my next step?
Join Physicians and Patients Reclaiming Medicine at https://ReclaimingMed.org Physicians, health care providers, advocates, and patients all welcome. See you there.
My second-most asked question: “Who do you go to for legal help?” Whether or not I have a lawyer, I love knowing my rights! How To Win In Court Without a Lawyer. Whether or not I have a lawyer, I love learning my rights! Too few Americans know what Justice is. Too many are denied Justice in our courts. For the past 36 years Dr. Graves has been an attorney and In 1997, he started his online course to help everyone who can't afford a lawyer by giving affordable legal know-how and solid confidence to tens of thousands of people for 25 years ... good people who now are winning in court without a lawyer!winning cases by doing what this course will show YOU how to do - step-by-step, quick & easy! www.HowToWinInCourt.com?refercode=AM0060