Covid Vaccines for Children? Part 1
In studying Covid-19 since it came upon the scene, I have been intrigued with how this has seemed to be a disease of the elderly – and has mostly spared children (except those with serious co-morbidities). The death rate for young kids (under 12) has been mostly non-existent, and the bulk of the deaths have been in the elderly with several co-morbidities. Yet many parents are quite scared of their children either catching Covid-19 or spreading it to vulnerable family members. What does the data say about all of this? What is the risk/benefit analysis for the children? Now that many 12-18 year-olds have taken the vaccine, what does the data tell us about their risks with this new technology? I will share some research and well-written articles that answers these questions.
Why Kids’ Immune Systems Can Handle COVID, and How Vaccines Could Compromise Their Natural Immune Response by Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D. 10-28-21
Given the almost “zero” risk COVID poses to children, and based on the scientific evidence, epidemiologist and researcher Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D. says we “are playing a dangerous game and are weakening formerly healthy robust immune systems.”
I am presenting the entire article by Paul Elias Alexander: The published evidence is conclusive: The risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 in healthy children is almost nil (statistical zero). This evidence has accumulated well over a year now — in fact, we’ve known this for more than 19 months. The risks clearly outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination for young children.
The evidence below relating to children (including on the risk of the injection itself) helps explain why children are not candidates for the COVID vaccines and why they may well be immune — and thus can be considered “fully vaccinated.”
5 Reasons why children must be considered already vaccinated:
- The virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited (less) expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways).
- This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, and less likely to spread the virus to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children as reported in this JAMA study and this research letter.
- By bypassing this natural protection (limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid via the vaccine, the vaccine’s messenger RNA and liquid nanoparticle content (e.g. PEG), and the spike protein generated by the vaccine, could damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g., here, here, here, here, here).
- Pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection, “resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.” Recent research deepens our understanding of this natural type biological/molecular protection.
- When one is vaccinated or becomes infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution and clonal evolution of B cells, which is key to encoding humoral immune memory. Recent research published in Science shows children’s blood, retrieved prior to the COVID pandemic, has memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2. This research suggests the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses (coronaviruses). This is supported by Mateus et al., who reported on T-cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection).
- Another study, which builds on previous research, suggests the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. The researchers argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond and optimally differentiate more rapidly and more nimbly, to mount a more robust response, to novel viruses.
- Children and adults display very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which helps explain why they have far less illness or mortality from COVID. A Yale University report in the journal Science Translational Medicines shows:
“Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 outbreak, scientists have observed that children infected with the virus tend to fare much better than adults … researchers reported that levels of two immune system molecules — interleukin 17A (IL-17A), which helps mobilize immune system response during early infection, and interferon gamma (INF-g), which combats viral replication — were strongly linked to the age of the patients. The younger the patient, the higher the levels of IL-17A and INF-g, the analysis showed … these two molecules are part of the innate immune system, a more primitive, non-specific type of response activated early after infection.”
Health officials know COVID poses almost no risk to kids
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration know the stability and clarity of the data in terms of minimal if any risk to children. It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading the virus to adults (as seen in household transmission studies), or of taking the virus home or becoming ill and/or dying — this is settled scientific global evidence.
Children are less at risk of developing severe illness, and also are far less susceptible and likely to spread and drive SARS-CoV-2 (references 1, 2, 3, 4). This implies that any mass injection/inoculation, or even clinical trials, on children with such near-zero risk of spread and illness/death is contraindicated, unethical and potentially associated with significant harm.
A team of Johns Hopkins researchers recently reported that when they looked at a group of about 48,000 children in the U.S. infected with the virus, they found no (zero) COVID deaths among the healthy kids. Dr. Marty Makary indicated his team worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with COVID in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. After studying comprehensive data on thousands of children, the team “found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition, such as leukemia.”
What we found when we dug deeper
With this background, we knew of the very low risk to children in the first place, but wanted scientific documentation (molecular/biological) of why this low risk existed, to help support our argument against COVID injections in our children — especially given evidence from Wisconsin, based on a study of 36 counties, showing vaccinated persons can shed/spread the virus.
The study showed 158 of 232 (68%) of COVID cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and 156 of 225 (69%) occurred in fully vaccinated and symptomatic individuals.
The Wisconsin study suggests the current vaccines are not working with the predominant Delta variant, and there is no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated (symptomatic) in becoming infected, colonizing, carrying and transmitting COVID. This is not a theoretical risk — this data provide a clear real risk example. Based on the evidence, the vaccines are not working against the hyper-dominant Delta variant (UK, Israel and U.S. data clearly show this), and the Delta variant is learning how to thrive against the vaccine.
According to a preprint study by Acharya et al, and another by Riemersma et al, the vaccinated are showing very high viral loads, similar to the unvaccinated, and the vaccinated are equally as infectious as the unvaccinated. One leading Israeli health official reported the vaccinated account for 95% of severe cases, and 90% of new COVID-related hospitalizations. A similar situation is emerging in the U.S., for example in New York, where new infections/cases among the vaccinated are being reported.
What then is the benefit of sub-optimal vaccines in children who are at such low risk in the first place? When the vaccine itself will cause harms?
What does all of this mean?
Between their young age and robust innate immunity, and this possibility of being COVID-recovered, children should not get the vaccine.
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche writes that children’s innate immunity:
“ … normally/naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious Co-V pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants.”
“Children who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity.”
“This, and based on all of the above, is why I am saying leave our children alone. Let them go to school and live largely unfettered lives. Let their immune systems breathe and be taxed and tuned up daily again.”
“We are playing a dangerous game and are weakening formerly healthy robust immune systems. Stop the insanity with the focus on the low-risk children in this disease and focus on the high-risk groups where the focus should be.”
“I am calling for a pause at least on the administration of these vaccines in toto until we can figure out the safety issues. There must be a definite “no go” on administration of any of these injections in children.”
“If parents need to take their children out of school due to vaccine mandates, then take them out of school. There is too much risk for your child — including, potentially, a lifetime of disability and death may emerge.”
Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products by Jessica Rose, Phd
This research article (also linked above) by Dr. Jessica Rose, scheduled to be published in a medical journal, has been censored with no reason given. She gives compelling evidence that teen boys and young men have at least a 19 times higher risk of myocarditis and pericarditis events after mRNA injections than the expected events. This is information that is vital to reach parents as they weigh the benefits and risks of these vaccines.
“Emergency use authorization of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the non-existence of alternate treatments,” Dr. Rose said. “There is no emergency, and Covid-19 is exceedingly treatable.”
“Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS). We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products.
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.
. . . the number of [Adverse Effects reported to VAERS] is very atypical and large when compared to frequencies of AE reports from previous years. Figure 1 illustrates the stark contrast between what the count would be if the trend of past 30 years continued through to the end of 2021: ∼65,000 for the entire 2021 year as opposed to ∼400,000 over 6 months. . . .
and VAERS reports in association with COVID-19 products for 2021 (right).
. . . Myocarditis reports in the context of the COVID-19 products are atypically high in the context of prior vaccine rollouts and in the context of baseline levels with respect to high-risk groups. The number of cases of myocarditis reported to the VAERS database dramatically outnumber case counts seen in previous years with 1 single case having been reported in 2019 and 1 single case being reported in 2020 . . . . Figure 2 shows the absolute numbers of myocarditis cases reported for 2021 as per Onset Date. It is clear from this bar plot that the frequency of myocarditis cases reported to VAERS has increased starting at the beginning of June. This is just shortly after the roll-out of injections into children aged 12-15 began. On May 10, 2021, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for BNT162b2 vaccine in children aged 12-15. Of note, 67% of myocarditis cases were in the context of administration of BNT162b2 (Pfizer).
Incidence rates of myocarditis in youths
As of July 9th, 2021, a total of 559 myocarditis AEs (0.14% of all AEs) have been reported. Of the reports, 80% of the gender classification was male. . . . The increase in myocarditis reports coincides with the COVID-19 injection rollouts in children aged 12-15, thus, we hypothesized that the increased cases of myocarditis were in fact occurring in children of these ages. Figure 3 shows the distribution of myocarditis cases by age grouped by decade. 41% of all myocarditis reports were made for children aged 10 through 20 and 72% of all myocarditis reports were made for young adults aged 10-30 years of age. The distribution is right-skewed toward the younger age groups, and this is statistically significant (I=1.61). This provides strong evidence to support our hypothesis.
. . . . The CDC estimated that 3,430,741 children aged 12-15 have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 products as of June 7th, 2021.4 Since 1 per 100,000 children per year are affected by myocarditis5 then, statistically, we would expect ∼5 myocarditis cases if we calculate the expected number of cases using the June 7th CDC sample. To date (up to and including July 2nd, 2021), 97 children aged 12-15 have had reports submitted to VAERS representing 17.4% of all myocarditis reports – and these are merely the cases that we are aware of. Thus, after 8 weeks of roll-out into the 12-15 years-old age group, we are at ∼19 times the expected number of cases within this sample. Thus, the number of VAERS-reported cases far outnumber what would typically be expected to date. It is important to note that of the 559 myocarditis VAERS reports, 6 died (1.1%) and 33% of these deaths were in individuals under 20 years of age: 1 individual was 13 and one was 19 years of age.
Data right-skewed in statistically significant way toward young males
In addition to very high rates of myocarditis cases in children aged 12-15, these rates are observed much more commonly in males. Figure 4 shows the distribution of myocarditis cases by age in males versus females. The distribution is right-skewed toward the younger age groups, and this is statistically significant (I=1.28), and males represent 80% of all cases. The most frequent occurrences were in 15-year-old boys (N= 44) and 18-year-old girls (N= 6).
Acute myocarditis following 2nd dose
The prevalence of myocarditis reports in the VAERS system is much higher in the context of dose 2 when comparing by age (t-test: p-value = 0.00092) and more highly associated with BNT162b2 (Pfizer; 74% of all dose 2 reports are in the context of BNT162b2). It is also much higher in males when comparing by age (t-test: p-value = 0.000009). Dose 2 is generally administered 3 weeks following the first dose assuming the individual survives dose 1 without any major complications, including death. . . . Figure 5 reveals that myocarditis reports peak in frequency at 6X for dose 2 in 15-year-old males. It also reveals that regardless of age, myocarditis cases are more frequently reported following dose 2.
Since the high-risk age population for myocarditis is from puberty through early 30s, myocarditis should be considered diagnostically in any young adult who experiences shortness of breath, palpitations or chest pain following injection with dose 1 of any COVID-19 injectable product. It is notable that chest pain is a prevalent tandem AE (25% of individuals who filed myocarditis reports into VAERS also experienced chest pain following dose 1) and this may not be acknowledged by a teenager, or even a medical professional, as a warning sign of cardiac insult. The data is right-skewed toward the younger ages, and this is statistically significant (I=1.2).
COVID-19 products highly associated with myocarditis – a case for causation?
. . . In 1990, 294,000 individuals died from cardiomyopathy (including myocarditis) which increased to 354,000 deaths in 2015. Myocarditis is a rare disease and typically presents in males and younger individuals as previously stated. The trigger for myocarditis is considered idiopathic but generally thought to be the result of infection or toxin. [2] However, in the context of vaccine-induced myocarditis, report numbers have typically been very low. That is, however, until recently. Consider that 2021 is the only year we have been able to collect AE data for the COVID-19 products and prior years are exclusively non-COVID products, except for 2 weeks in December 2020.
The average number of myocarditis reports in VAERS in the context of all vaccines combined for the past 3 years is 4: 11 (0.02% of total) reports were made in 2018, and 1 report was made for 2019 (0.002% of total) and 2020 (0.002% of total), respectively. The number of myocarditis case reports for 2021 are at 559 (0.14%); far higher than last year for all vaccine products combined as shown in Figure 6. Myocarditis case rates for 2018-2021 reveal that the rates of myocarditis, when normalized to the number of fully vaccinated/injected individuals, are exceedingly higher in 2021 than for previous years as shown in Table 1.
Cardiac events associated with COVID-19
There are 129,522 AEs to date (July 9th, 2021) that are directly related to clinical diagnosis of serious cardiac issues such as myocarditis. Figure 7 shows the distribution of cardiac events by age group generated just from [a] short list of keywords. The highest number of reports was made by individuals aged 30-40 but overall, the distribution is symmetric and unimodal with no statistically significant skewing toward any specific age group (I=0.32). This means that cardiac AEs are being heavily reported, regardless of age.
Discussion
In the context of COVID-19, and according to Dr. Leslie Cooper, there are a significant number of patients who present clinically as healthy who are experiencing heart-related complications, including myocarditis. 7[2,17,18,19] There is a high risk of cardiac involvement both from COVID-19 infection and from COVID-19 injectable products and the risks of the latter must be further assessed and evaluated. Because of the spontaneous reporting of events to VAERS, we can assume that the cases reported thus far are not rare, but rather, just the tip of the iceberg. Again, under-reporting is a known and serious disadvantage of the VAERS system. [28,29,30] The only way to understand how common myocarditis is after COVID-19 vaccination, is to perform a prospective cohort study where all vaccinated individuals undergo clinical assessment, ECG, and troponin measurement at regular intervals post-administration.
The fact that the VAERS reporting of myocarditis is 6X higher in 15-year-olds following dose 2 may be indicative of a cause-effect relationship. . . . It is noteworthy that ‘Vaccine-induced myocarditis’ was in fact used as the descriptor by medical professionals as the reason for the myocarditis in the VAERS database. . . . During phase III clinical trials for the mRNA COVID-19 products, safety was assessed based on a maximum observation period of 6 months. This is not adequate to assess long-term safety outcomes as it is a requirement, even in an accelerated timeline setting, to spend up to 9 months in Phase III trials.8 The typical timeline is up to 10 years for safety and efficacy assessment. [47,48] There are many examples of biological product recalls historically.
. . . mRNA platforms have never before been implemented for use in human subjects on a global scale in the context of viruses and it has recently been shown that the spike protein itself systemically traffics inducing damage within cells, at the cell surface, and through circulation with endothelial damage and thrombosis. [44,45] . . . Safety is always a point of relevance with regards to new biological agents and given these new findings, it would be prudent to pay particular attention to the AEs being reported to the VAERS system in the context of these experimental products with known dangerous mechanisms of action. When evidence of harm appears, we need to follow the evidence and immediately take steps to mitigate risks.
. . . the Israeli Ministry of Health recently announced that approximately 1 in 4,500 men ages 16 to 24 who received BNT162b2 developed myocarditis. [46] This rate is much higher than the rate estimated based on VAERS data and could reflect variation in reporting. Nonetheless, the risk is higher for the young with an average of 28 12-15-year-olds succumbing to myocarditis per million fully immunized. Discerning between ICU-related mild cardiac injury with SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection and myocarditis in the context of COVID-19 and the injectable biologicals is important.
. . . It is vital to recall that children have a negligible risk for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are a high-risk group for myocarditis with vaccination. Newly-published evidence of Vaccine-Induced Autoimmune Myocarditis, [58] demonstrates the risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination. [87,88,89,92,93,94,95] Despite this, a recent CDC report (May 31, 2021) claimed no danger signal was detectable from the VAERS AE data in the context of myocarditis and as such, they continue to support administration of these products into children 12 years of age and older despite reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in youth in temporal proximity to dose administration. [94]
Conclusions
These data are derived from a rushed, non-FDA-approved, ongoing investigational product roll-out, and our conclusions are thus limited by the information at hand. In addition to the 12-15-year-old age group data being very early, it is vital to acknowledge that these reports represent a fraction of the actual total. Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the known lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering CIRM – especially males is unacceptably high. Again, children are not a high-risk group for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are the high-risk group for CIRM.
. . . Effective multidrug therapy is available for rare case of serious COVID-19 respiratory illness in the forms of antivirals, immunomodulators, and anthrombotics. [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72] The combination of a low IFR in children indicating effective and robust immune responses [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83], and the ability to treat with medical therapy, should the need arise, bodes well for clinical outcomes in children [69,70,71,72]. . . . As part of any risk/benefit analysis which must be completed in the context of experimental products, the points herein must be considered before a decision can be made pertaining to agreeing to 2-dose injections of these experimental COVID-19 products, especially into children and by no means, should parental consent be waived under any circumstances to avoid children volunteering for injections with products that do not have proven safety or efficacy.”
I have included many excerpts of this detailed study because I think it is so important. I encourage you to read the whole report. There is not enough safety data for pregnant ladies and young children and teens to recommend they take this shot. As Jessica Rose states, it normally takes 10 years to assess safety data, and it’s all about safety. Even if the incidence is unknown, we know that myocarditis is happening and we know that it has ruined many lives (and ended some). Since young people and children are at such a low risk for a serious case of Covid, and there are studies showing that kids aren’t a spreader of this disease, it would be judicious to use caution when considering whether to vax children. It seems that there is no benefit because their risk is already so low – and there are known and unknown risks. If your child is one of the unlucky ones, even if it is rare, it won’t seem rare to you.
“Aims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus.
Methods used to conduct the study: Published literature was reviewed to identify preclinical and clinical evidence that COVID‐19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating virus. Clinical trial protocols for COVID‐19 vaccines were reviewed to determine if risks were properly disclosed.
Results of the study: COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications: The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”
I am a firm believer in researching all medical advice and protocols with additional doctors and health providers, and to search out information on your own to learn the data that the pharmacy companies do not necessarily want you to have. Informed consent is important when considering any medical procedures, whether surgery, taking drugs, or injecting vaccines. Most doctors are not taught about nutrition and how natural treatments can many times help heal a disease or chronic condition. Western medicine is great at fixing broken bones, but I believe that much of the chronic disease we see in America now are the results of more lifestyle choices and side effects from drugs and procedures that are promoted by the pharmaceutical companies. It’s time to “take back our own health” and not expect the government to keep us well and safe. As parents, let’s research for ourselves and become informed consumers. The health of our children depend on it.
I believe that God created us with an awesome and complex immune system, and the more that we tamper with it, the more that we are possibly harming our bodies. We know that our immune system keeps many viruses and cancers and other ailments “in check”. When we are rundown or introduce pathogens into our body – that can interfere with the working of our innate immune systems. It’s certainly something to think and read about. We are only given one body on this earth – let’s take care of it as best we can!