If not for the devastating consequences, it could have been quite amusing.
Those who discriminated against others based on their genetic characteristics1 defamed critics of this discrimination as Nazis.
Those who derived their "scientific research" purely from corrupt media have let those media make them believe that the appropriate scientific attitude consists in following the approved narrative in all its meanderings and that whoever does not subscribe to this is anti-science.
Those who see themselves as "leftists" have maintained that the sacrifice, through lockdowns, of millions of lives in the global south without robust evidence of benefit is acceptable or even indicative of solidarity, whereas a critique of the corruption and deceit of the trillion-dollar bio-pharmaceutical complex is not in order.
The media, politics, academia, the public health apparatus as well as the military-intelligence complex have caused grave harm to millions upon millions of our fellow humans, severely limited our ability to generate wealth and thus harmed the health of every human being, born or yet unborn, downstream of that wealth.
What I will focus on here though is something I first worked out in the fall of 2021, immediately tried to communicate to everyone I could reach, and that we have all failed to prevent.
The trouble is: if we allowed it to happen, we would allow anything to happen.
This can be worked out with no trouble whatsoever based purely on canonical, government-approved sources, in an hour or two of research. Here it goes:
The COVID jabs were always going to kill more children than they could possibly have saved. Administering them amounts to homicide.
I am usually careful with language. These are stone-cold, unequivocal facts.
Here comes the "methods section". I'll keep it as simple as possible.
I choose the USA as my example, since it's a large country with a heterogenous population that keeps at least average-quality data2 and it has a higher pediatric COVID death rate than other countries, so I'm decidedly not cherry-picking.
The following data is taken from the CDC and VAERS websites on 2023/01/09.
The CDC reports exactly 1600 deaths for children under the age of 19 over a period of almost three years. This is an inflated number because it is largely children with serious comorbidities who died and were included here, whether or not COVID is what ended their lives, whereas no child would have been allowed to die of COVID — however ill-defined that condition may be — without first being tested and thus included, except for very unlikely false negatives permanently flying under the radar.
In the much-deplored VAERS database on the other hand, there are 78 reports of children under the age of 18 having died after a COVID jab over a period of about two years. The standard hand-waving arguments are:
VAERS is a poor quality database. It is the CDC's and FDA's database, so any quality issue is on them. This is irrelevant here, too, since deaths are not difficult to diagnose and contextual details are not needed for the following calculation.
There are fake entries. Though it is a federal offense to file a false report to VAERS, this is true, while not that common. It is also irrelevant because the following calculation fully takes this into account.
It's overreported. There is a host of scientific literature on how underreported passive pharmacovigilance systems like VAERS are, but I'll use an extremely conservative under-reporting factor (URF) of 10.3 That number, as with all URFs for all pharmaceuticals, takes into account both fake entries and the undisputed fact that some reports are "false" in that the jab was temporally but not causally associated with the death. These cannot reasonably be used as objections to my calculation, not without concrete, robust evidence for significant differences in reporting behaviour for COVID jabs versus conventional vaccines.
To be slightly more precise, the period of about two years only applies for teenagers 16 or 17 years old. It's under 20 months for the age group from 12 to 15, just over 14 months for kids aged 5 to 11 and just under seven months for the smallest ones, six months or older. Taking into account the actual numbers of death reports in each age group, I calculate a weighted average of about 18 months.4
So far, being as generous as possible (short of being blind), we're looking at 1600 COVID deaths over three years and 780 jab deaths in 18 months (78 multiplied by the URF of 10). Note that this really is the most generous way to look at it and that not applying any URF would be straight up fraud.
Nearly every child has already had one or more SARS-CoV-2 infections, I assume a 95% spread and ignore the possibility of reinfections. Just to be conservative. At least 40% of all children are jabbed. This results in ballpark figures of 0.6 monthly COVID deaths per million children and 1.4 monthly jab deaths per million children5.
To be fair, one might argue there would have been more COVID deaths if not for the jabs. Also to be fair, I shall note again all the ways this is very, very conservative.
But this isn't the correct comparison. What we should actually be looking at in order to understand the harm-benefit profile of these products is jab deaths versus the number of children whose lives have been saved by the jabs.
For that, one would need to know the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one death in a child. With no deaths having occurred in the clinical trials in children, calculating that NNV is impossible without access to large government databases. Government agencies around the world have not only failed to provide a NNV estimate of any sort but have altogether avoided even mentioning the concept.
What is clear though is that it is not going to make for a happy comparison. It would have to be at least a six-digit figure when taking into account clinical trial data (for instance, the Pfizer trial for adults suggests a NNV of about 22,000), the infection fatality rate for children, the imperfect and waning effectiveness as well as original antigenic sin and antibody-dependent enhancement.
Using, as an example, the very conservative figure of 100,000, I calculate that with about 40 million children having been jabbed in the USA (it's actually a bit less), 400 children's lives might have been saved from COVID. Contrast this with the number of lives lost to the jabs, which stand at the very least at 780.
There is only one plausible conclusion, and I will repeat it:
The COVID jabs were always going to kill more children than they could possibly have saved.
Note: This post has been lightly edited on the day of its release.
At least as far as gene expression is concerned, the jabbed indeed differ genetically from the unjabbed. Whether or not the jabs have any significant permanent impact on the genes of the jabbed (as well as their offspring) is still an open question. Back in 2019, that would not have been regarded as a positive by anybody.
Which is shameful given the astronomical sums of money flowing into "healthcare" there.
The range for a realistic URF is really quite high, unfortunately. It could be anywhere between 5 and 500 for deaths in children. While independent efforts have produced URFs of typically between 20 and 50, these two German government-approved sources state the URF for pharmaceuticals in general to be at least upward of 10:
Writers from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, published in a federal health bulletin: URF ≥ 20
Note that I am dismissing the URF of 100 found in the "Lazarus Report", submitted to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., specifically for VAERS. Just to be conservative.
There is no evidence whatsoever for a lower URF for COVID jabs, though much anecdotal evidence for it being higher than usual. The CDC has steadfastly refused to do their job and provide one.
I ignore the fact that COVID deaths include an extra year of life (18-year-olds) while jab deaths do not, which slants the data rather significantly in favor of the jabs. Just to be conservative.
95% of 80 million = 76 million. 1600 deaths / 36 months = 44.44 per month, which when divided by 76 million equals roughly 0.6 per million.
40% of 80 million = 32 million. 780 deaths / 18 months = 43.33 per month, which when divided by 32 million equals roughly 1.4 per million.
Yes, it is homicide, thank you for saying it. We live in times of madness.
Relatedly:
Dr. Paul Alexander: ‘Not One Healthy Child Has Of Died' In US Since Beginning Of Pandemic
https://rumble.com/v18ue4m-dr.-alexander-not-one-healthy-child-has-of-died-in-us-since-beginning-of-pa.html
June 17, 2022
TRANSCRIPT
STEVE BANNON: How can we possibly have the FDA approving—and they seem like they're obsessed— to approve the vaccinations, the vaccines for the babies. Walk me through this. I don't understand how this could happen given all the information that's come out now, and I particularly don't understand the obsession, and it is an obsession they have, to get it into kids under five. Dr. Alexander.
DR. PAUL ALEXANDER: Hey Steve, once again, it's a real honor to be here. Look, let me get to the point. When we look at all of the data, we look at data out of Sweden, out of Germany, out of the UK, we look at data by Martin Makary Johns Hopkins, we look at all of the Nordic nations, we see that the risk of death in healthy children, young children, young infants even, is basically zero. In fact Sweden, Germany, and these places record no deaths in healthy children in this age group. Martin Makary's group Johns Hopkins showed us that, I want to be clear how I make this statement, in United States of America since the beginning of this pandemic, not one healthy child has gotten infected with covid and died.
[TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: see <https://palexander.substack.com/p/makary-the-flimsy-evidence-behind>
which references this research]
I want to say it again so the public can hear it.
In the United States of America, during covid, from day one to today, that's almost two and a half years, not one healthy child has gotten infected with covid and passed away. Period.
There is no data that Fauci, Francis Collins, Rochelle Walensky, anyone in the Biden administration, or anyone even in the prior Trump administration, has shown us. There weren't any child. This is reckless, this is dangerous what the FDA and CDC has done.
They have no data, Steve. And what they have done is, they are relying on trials and studies that are very suboptimal and methodologically flawed. They are deliberately undersize, in terms of the sample size being small, and they deliberately shorten the duration of followup. So you, the reader, don't realize that they cannot detect safety signals because the duration of followup is so short, the safety effects can't emerge. So what they are doing is deceiving and misleading the public. And they are using crazy procedures like immunobridging. They are not looking at the patient important outcomes that you as a parent, you as grandparents, need to know.
Does this vaccine, let me be clear, does the Pfizer Moderna vaccine cut the risk of hospitalization or death or ICU? Patient important hard outcomes. There is no study that Pfizer Moderna has done, none, as of this moment, to show that these vaccines are effective in reducing hospitalizations or death. What they have done is they've run studies on antibodies, which means nothing to us because antibodies are not a proxy for immunity. So right now we are being misguided and misled with this flawed, and I actually say fraudulent, studies.
What the FDA has done here and the CDC is wrong. And I want to go on record Steve by saying, this is the hill that parents must battle on. This is the hill that parents must be prepared, must prepared to wage their largest battle. No child should be given these vaccines. Absolutely none. There's no basis. Your child is at zero risk, statistical zero risk, of severe illness or death from covid. You stand up and you say no.
# # #
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:
More info about Dr Paul Alexander at
https://www.drpaulalexander.com/
Dr. Alexander's Substack:
https://palexander.substack.com/