The Case Against Vaccination of Children and Infants: MIS-C (Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome) By Mrs Vera West

Dr Jessica Rose demolishes the alleged case for vaccination of children. There have been two arguments for the mass vaccination of children, a low-risk group for Covid: (1) The rate of myocarditis and pericarditis after an infection in children; and, (2) The dangers of MIS-C or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Regarding the first argument she shows that the statistics are flawed, and that the evidence indicates that the chance of being infected and then having a serious outcome from infection is less than the chance of having a serious outcome from the vaccine. This is seen by some jurisdiction halting the rollout of Covid vaccines because of fears of myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in young boys and teenage males.

Regarding the dangers of MIS-C or multisystem inflammatory syndrome argument, she points out that this danger is rare for Covid in children, and the few studies that disagree, she shows, or has shown in other posts, have methodological flaws. The dangers of MIS-C with the vax, has not be adequately studied, but the available data indicates that there is a greater chance of MIS-C with the vax, than relying upon the strong immune system that children have. There is no good reason for the Covid vax for children, but plenty of bad reasons, including a deliberate depopulation agenda.

https://jestre.substack.com/p/the-mis-c-narrative-is-looking-extremely?s=r

“For a long time, the justification to get children vaccinated has revolved around two arguments:

1. The rate of myocarditis and pericarditis after an infection in children; and,
2. The dangers of MIS-C or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Myocarditis and Pericarditis

Regarding the former argument, I think we have fully fleshed out our point. In essence, almost all studies in the literature make the tacit choice to compare rates of myocarditis/pericarditis rates per 100,000 infections to rates per 100,000 injections. Even someone who took a watered down math course like “Math for Doctors” can see why that is a terrible comparison.

Expected Value

First off, the denominators on the rates of infection are without a doubt erroneous, sometimes by an order of magnitude. There are people that do not test, people that test at home or outside of a testing location, asymptomatic infections, and reinfections or other infections that researchers ignore. It is unclear how many people in the population have actually had COVID-19 in any given time frame.

Secondly, not everyone gets infected with COVID-19. There is a very high chance of not being infected in the time period between a second shot and a booster, say. If we take any arbitrary four month period within a year, vaccinated or not, the chances of being infected were low. Whereas, those who receive a vaccine have a 100% chance of receiving a vaccine. Sorry for the obvious tautology, but it seems like many medical researchers do not understand that simple fact.

The above two points are, at the heart of the matter, conveying the same message. If we assume higher rates of infection than reported in these studies, then the rate of getting myocarditis from infection is lower than reported. If, on the other hand, we assume the same rates of infection, then the chances of being infected in a given time period remain low. In either case, the chance of being infected and subsequently having a serious outcome from infection is less than the chance of having a serious outcome from the vaccine.

When we add in more variables, things only look worse for the vaccine. For example, previous infections may lower the chance of being infected in the future and, whether through survivorship bias or not, lower the chance of having a serious outcome from infection. Getting vaccinated after a previous infection, then, lowers any supposed benefits from the vaccine while holding costs constant (or potentially increasing the costs).

Another example, and relevant to the current discussion, is the emergence of new variants, which can do several things. They can, for example, make the previous vaccination completely moot. Meaning a person who has been vaccinated does not even get the potential benefits of any four month period where positive efficacy existed. The new variant may also be milder meaning the benefits from vaccination are low or the variant may target the vaccinated due to environmental pressures placed upon the virus in a highly vaccinated population.

And just to hammer the point home, if the vaccine causes negative efficacy in the first few weeks, as the COVID-19 vaccines absolutely do, or “protection” from the vaccine is parabolic over time, then the benefits of the vaccine are lower than most people recognize. See below for a rough illustration of what I mean by that.

Essentially, though, none of that matters because even before we start adding variables the comparison between infection and vaccine is not even close. Children and teenagers are at a much, much greater risk from the vaccines than the virus.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children

The second argument to justify vaccination is a lot more difficult to quantify because there is a complete refusal by most of the vaccine enthusiastic academics to even investigate the rate at which the vaccine causes MIS-C. For example, the CDC study that I critiqued did not even calculate the rate of MIS-C after vaccination despite the fact that MIS-C is an adverse event of special interest from the vaccine. Researchers generally operate under the tacit assumption that those cases are incredibly rare with little to no data to back it up.

Furthermore, it is difficult to even understand the causation factor since most researchers claim it can occur weeks after an infection. We’d need to know a lot about an individual’s characteristics and medical history. There are drugs that cause EERILY similar symptoms. The antibiotic Cipro comes to mind (stay away from that one at all costs) and symptoms can persist for long periods of time. Could there be antivirals that have similar effects? Could doctors overreact, give children dangerous drugs, then pretend like the side effects from the drug they gave the child was a symptom of COVID? I would not rule that out.

I’m not saying that MIS-C is not a symptom of COVID in rare cases, many vaccination adverse events seem to be (the consequences of making someone a spike protein factory), but the research on the topic that I’ve seen is junk. A lot of effort has gone into making MIS-C “brooding and mysterious” and little effort has been put towards evaluating confounding factors. But maybe that is my failure in finding the studies, not their failure in performing them, so I am open to being wrong on that front.

In any case, whether due to a decrease in malpractice because doctors consider omicron milder, or omicron being milder, the rate at which MIS-C is being diagnosed dropped in recent months. Rapidly.

The study claims MIS-C was diagnosed:

• 1 time for (not from) every 432 cases during the Alpha wave
• 1 time for 977 cases during pre-vaccine Delta
• 1 time for 1260 cases during post-vaccine Delta ← strange distinction to make considering the age groups and location… except for the 12-14 year olds who started receiving vaccines in fall, most of the cohort being measured did not start receiving vaccines until last month. In other words, there was little opportunity for this age group to benefit from vaccination as the authors are implying. See picture below:

That is an enormous drop off. The drop off is likely reflective of the fact that the original denominators being used for cases were far too low relative to the omicron denominators. My assumption, in other words, is that people are more likely to have tested for omicron than alpha, say. But that is not to say that the omicron case numbers are not also under-reported as well, they surely are, and if my assumption is incorrect, then that means the occurrences of MIS-C in the population are even rarer.

Like the previous variants, MIS-C is quickly becoming extinct. I suspect due to vaccination cases of MIS-C may rise slightly as the younger age groups begin to get vaccinated. Previously, the 12 to 15 year olds, some of whom would be included in the chart’s data, began receiving vaccines in fall, so some vaccine induced cases of MIS-C may be included in the chart.

The chart, also, considers cases by dominant strain, so MIS-C from both vaccination and delta will naturally be included for some of the omicron period. Just as some omicron cases would be included in the last delta period (a more likely explanation for the drop in that period than the vaccine having any effect1). In essence, MIS-C in omicron may not even occur. The entirety of the cases in the omicron period are likely be from either delta or the vaccine. But if it does occur, it’s incredibly rare, and far rarer than this chart even captures.

In addition to the other adverse events from the vaccine, we are left with a pretty grim justification for vaccination children. In fact, there is no justification at all. I doubt even the regulators at the FDA, as corrupt as they may be, would give authorization to the vaccines in children six months to five years old if they knew the MIS-C justification is now extinct.”

I would not be so sure Jess, as in many jurisdictions the drive to vaccine even babies is occurring, and certainly the under five-year-old’s. If it has a vein, it must be jabbed.