There’s NO case for “vaccinating” children…& the FDA meeting proves it

Kit Knightly

Findings from an FDA meeting are being used to raise alarms about the level of risk Covid poses for children, in order to push for the authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine for kids under eleven.

The real story of the statistics is that children face almost no danger from “Covid”, and the experts at the meeting themselves admit the vaccines have unknown side effects, especially in the long term.

*

On October 26th, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee held a meeting to vote on allowing Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) of Pfizer’s Covid “vaccine” for children aged 5-11.

Getting approved by the VRBPAC is a key step on the way to the FDA issuing an EUA, and with the vote passing the Pfizer vaccine is expected to be approved for use on children in November.

The entire meeting was live-streamed, and you can watch the whole eight hours of it below, if you really feel the need:

For those who would rather not, here are the key take-aways:

• Seroprevalence studies suggest, as of June 2021, ~42% of 5 to 11-year-olds have been exposed to Covid.
• Roughly 1.9 million Covid cases have been reported in that age group.
• 8300 of those cases have resulted in hospitalisation.
• One third of hospitalisations resulted in an ICU stay.
• 94 children have died.

These bullet points have been doing the rounds on social media, and in articles, to try and frighten people into believing “Covid” poses a serious risk to their children:

Very good summary from today’s VRBPAC meeting on Covid-19 in the 5-11 year old age group

It’s clearly NOT a benign illness in kids; and there are major racial disparities in terms of which kids get sick@ENirenberg is live tweeting 🙏🙏🙏 pic.twitter.com/8IdBxagbaY

— Prof. Gavin Yamey MD MPH (@GYamey) October 26, 2021

In fact, they show the complete opposite.

Ignores the ridiculous argument about missing school, and ignore the race-baiting nonsense even harder. Focus on the figures.

Five to eleven-year-olds make up roughly 8.7% of the US population, or 32 million people. If the seroprevalence data is correct, that means about 13.4 million children aged 5-11 have been exposed to Covid to the point they’ve developed antibodies.

8300 hospitalisations out of 13.4 million people is only 0.06%. So a child infected with Covid has a 99.86% chance of never needing to go into hospital.

94 deaths out of 13.4 million people gives an overall survival rate of 99.994%. Right in line with CDC predictions from months ago.

As if these numbers aren’t small enough, they all come with important riders that make them even smaller.

Firstly, while the hospitalisation and fatality figures are current, the seroprevalence data is from June of this year. Millions more children have likely been exposed to the virus since June, so logically speaking the survival rate is potentially a significant underestimate.

Secondly, we have no idea what (or how many) pre-existing conditions were present in the children that died. We DO know the vast majority of “Covid deaths” have at least one serious co-morbidity, therefore the survival rate for healthy children is probably even higher than 99.994%.

Finally, there’s the most important rider for this entire situation: We don’t know any of these “covid cases” or “covid deaths” ever had “covid” at all.

The existence of the virus sars-cov-2 as a discrete entity that causes the disease known as Covid is not proven. The tests they use to detect this virus are not fit for purpose and can return huge numbers of false positives. And, since “Covid deaths” are defined only as “death from any cause within 30 days of a positive test”, ALL Covid-related statistics are entirely meaningless.

…but let’s put that aside.

Let us assume, for now, that Covid is very real, that all these children had it, and it tragically resulted in 94 of them dying.

Does a survival rate of at least 99.994% justify an EUA for the Pfizer “vaccine”?

To answer that, let’s compare Covid to the flu, and then see what we really know about these “vaccines”.

Covid vs The Flu

According to these numbers, in the US Covid has killed 94 children aged 5-11 since the beginning of the pandemic.

For comparison’s sake, according to the CDC 2017/2018 flu season resulted in the deaths of at least 188 children of all ages, and they report this is “likely an undercount” and the real number was “closer to 600”. The 2019/20 season was similar, with 199 official flu deaths in children, this is also described as an undercount.

The 2009/10 flu season was much worse, when the Swine flu “pandemic” killed at least 358 children.

And that’s just in flu season, the six months from October to May. Covid has been around for almost two years and is allegedly responsible for 645 deaths in children under 18. That’s a comparable rate to flu, without even taking into account the absurd way “covid deaths” are collated to deliberately inflate the numbers.

Interestingly, in the 20/21 flu season, only 9 pediatric flu hospitalisations were reported, down from the expected “several thousand”. While Covid was out there killing people at about the same rate as the flu, only 1 single child is reported to have died of flu.

All of which is pretty remarkable when you think about.

The vaccines

Having established that Covid has at least a 99.994% survival rate in 5-11 year old children, and that it’s no more dangerous than the flu, is there any argument left for vaccinating children?

Well, yes, there’s the “protect granny” argument.

From the beginning of the pandemic, when it became apparent the allegedly deadly “Covid” plague posed almost no risk whatsoever to children, the argument for vaccinating children wasn’t to protect them, but to prevent them from spreading it to “vulnerable” relatives.

Matt Hancock, the UK’s Health Secretary, even told kids “don’t kill your gran by catching coronavirus and passing it on!”

But do the vaccines mitigate this alleged risk?

No, not according to the latest reports, published in The Lancet and reported by the BBC. The recent study states there is a “continued risk of infection in household contacts despite vaccination”.

So the alleged benefit of vaccinating children turns out to be non-existent. Even if the vaccines were proven safe, injecting them into children has already been shown to be completely pointless…and they are not proven safe.

This is not at all a controversial position, it logically follows that vaccines less than a year old have unknown long-term impacts. Further, Pfizer themselves admit it.

A supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant and the government of Albania, leaked by the independent media, contains a clause that states:

…the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.

The experts from the VRBPAC panel agree. One of them, Dr Eric Rubin of the Harvard School of Public Health, even said at the meeting (6.52.30):

We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is, until we start giving it.”

…which is not at all a confidence-building thing to hear, if you are a parent.

Conclusion

So, there you have it really. Mainstream experts and sources have been clear:

• Children are at virtually no risk from the disease.
• Vaccinated people still transmit the virus.
• The long term side effects of the vaccine entirely unknown.

In light of all that, the relevant question stops being “Is vaccinating your child worth the risk?”. The answer to that seems to be fairly clearly “no”.

Instead, and rather more importantly, we need to ask: Why would any supposedly independent body ever approve an unnecessary, ineffective and experimental medical treatment for use on children?

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from OffGuardian can be found here ***