Perhaps as worrying as the reproductive harms of the Covid vaxxes are the harms to children, a group which is very low risk from Covid-19, and should not be vaxxed in the first place. These harms are now being recognised even in leading mainstream medical publications. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) just published new research showing that one out of every 500 children who gets the Covid vaxxes, ends up suffering injuries serious enough to require hospitalization. A detailed critical analysis of the paper and its limitations is below. But, even so, the statistic taken cold are sobering.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-25-one-in-500-children-jabbed-covid-hospitalized-study.html
“The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) just published new research showing that one out of every 500 children who gets “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) ends up suffering injuries serious enough to require hospitalization.
The paper looked at 7,806 children aged five or younger who were tracked for an average of 91.4 days following their first injection with Pfizer’s mRNA (messenger RNA) shot.
The retrospective cohort study was conducted using an authenticated online survey with a response rate of 41.1 percent. It included parents and / or caregivers who signed up children in their care for injection at one of Germany’s many outpatient care facilities.
Any adverse events reported among these children were compared to those of other “control group” children who received other vaccinations but not covid injections. The reason we put “control group” in quotes is because a true control group would be children who received no vaccinations at all, but “science” never uses a real control group like that when looking at vaccine safety.
Based on this flawed, other-vaccinations-control-group methodology, the paper concluded that the adverse events reported post-injection with Pfizer were “comparable overall” to those reported in the non-covid-injected group – case closed. Or is it?
Ear, nose, and throat problems in fully jabbed children found to be 537% higher than in non-jabbed children
A closer look at the paper’s revelations shows that the “moderately elevated” side effects in the covid-jabbed group of children were not so moderate after all. Here is the very statistically significant breakdown:
- Musculoskeletal (muscles and bones) symptoms: 155 percent higher
• Dermatologic (skin) symptoms: 118 percent higher
• Otolaryngologic (ears, nose, and throat) symptoms: 537 percent higher
• Cardiovascular (heart etc.): 36 percent higher
• Gastrointestinal (stomach etc.): 54 percent higher
Overall, symptoms of any kind were found to be 62 percent higher, on average, in the covid-jabbed group of children compared to the non-covid-jabbed group of children. How, then, were the researchers able to declare that the two groups were “comparable overall?”
The answer, of course, is that the scientists involved pulled certain scientific sleights of hand to make the true disparity between the two groups seem minimal and insignificant. This happens a lot in the scientific community, which is heavily influenced by Big Pharma dollars.
One must extrapolate the data contained in the study further and in different ways than the way it is presented to get to the real truth about the shots, which is that they are killing far more children than “science” is letting on.
“The mortality rate in under-20s has been shown to be 0.0003%,” writes Sean Adl-Tabatabai for Newspunch.
“The figure for under-fives will be even lower. But even if we unrealistically assume this is the mortality rate for under-fives and the vaccines reduce it to zero, this still means that at least 500 children are hospitalised for every life the vaccines save. In reality the ratio will be much worse than this.”
Despite this, regulators in the European Union (EU) and the United States have authorized covid injections for young children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also slated to approve the shots for addition to the official childhood immunization schedule.
“How many dead kids is it going to take to take a stand against a deadly vaccine being forced to take by the government and school systems?” asked a commenter.
“It’s all profits to them,” wrote another about the drug industry players that are pushing all this behind the scenes. “They make no money from healthy people.”
“The only reason they’re jabbing children is to sterilize them,” suggested another.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797451
Key Points
Question Is the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safe in children younger than 5 years?
Findings In this cohort study based on a survey of guardian-reported safety profiles of BNT162b2 in 7806 children, higher dosages of BNT162b2 were significantly associated with injection-site reactions. Compared with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 was associated with significantly more frequent injection-site, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, or otolaryngologic symptoms but fewer general symptoms and fever after vaccination.
Meaning In this study, the overall frequency of adverse events after vaccination with BNT162b2 was comparable with the frequency of adverse events after vaccination with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children younger than 5 years.
Abstract
Importance SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are authorized for use in most age groups. The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is unknown in children younger than 5 years.
Objective To retrospectively evaluate the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine used off-label in children younger than 5 years compared with the safety of non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the same sample.
Design, Setting, and Participants This investigator-initiated retrospective cohort study included parents or caregivers who registered children for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in outpatient care facilities in Germany. The study was performed as an authenticated online survey. A total of 19 000 email addresses were contacted from vaccination registration databases between April 14 and May 9, 2022. Inclusion criteria were child age younger than 5 years at the first BNT162b2 vaccination and use of a correct authentication code to prove invitation.
Exposures Off-label BNT162b2 vaccination and on-label non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations.
Main Outcomes and Measures Reported short-term safety data of 1 to 3 doses of 3 to 10 μg BNT162b2 in children from birth to younger than 60 months are presented. Coprimary outcomes were the frequencies of 11 categories of symptoms after vaccination with bivariate analyses and regression models adjusting for age, sex, weight, and height.
Results The study included 7806 children (median age, 3 years [IQR, 2-4 years]; 3824 [49.0%] female) who were followed up of for a mean (SD) of 91.4 (38.8) days since first BNT162b2 vaccination (survey response rate, 41.1%). A 10-μg dosage was more frequently associated with local injection-site symptoms compared with lower dosages. In the active-comparator analysis, the probability of any symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.43-1.84), local symptoms (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.38-2.05), musculoskeletal symptoms (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.32-4.94), dermatologic symptoms (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 10.7-4.45), or otolaryngologic symptoms (OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 1.50-27.09) were modestly elevated after BNT162b2 compared with non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, whereas the probabilities of general symptoms (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95) and fever (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55) were lower after BNT162b2. Symptoms requiring hospitalization (n = 10) were reported only at BNT162b2 dosages above 3 μg.
Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, the symptoms reported after BNT162b2 administration were comparable overall to those for on-label non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in this cohort of children younger than 5 years. The present data may be used together with prospective licensure studies of BNT162b2 efficacy and safety and could help guide expert recommendations about BNT162b2 vaccinations in this age group.”
And, apart from the harm to children, the damages go back further to sperm and the female reproductive system:
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) ignored preliminary safety signals in the Pfizer emergency use authorization (EUA) data. After Pfizer was court-ordered to release hundreds of thousands of documents related to their experimental vaccine, researchers uncovered serious safety signals that were ignored by government regulators. There is enough evidence to suggest that the mRNA vaccines pose a threat to pregnancy and contribute to infertility in both females and males.
Vaccine spike proteins concentrate in distal organs, damaging the function of the ovaries
For one, the engineered spike protein that is encoded and translated in the cells of the vaccinated tends to concentrate in the ovaries of women. The vaccine manufacturers had previously asserted that the spike proteins are neutralized in the deltoid muscle immediately after vaccination. Instead, the spike proteins evade immune detection, cause inflammation throughout the body, and concentrate in various distal organs, most notably the ovaries. The ovaries are the glands where eggs form, where female hormones oestrogen and progestogen are synthesized.
In the study, the vaccine-induced spike proteins traveled to the liver, spleen, heart, pituitary gland, the thyroid and the ovaries, causing unknown damage along the way. The total lipid concentration of the spike proteins continued to go up after 15 minutes, from .104ml to 1.34ml after one hour, to 2.34ml after four hours, and then to 12.3ml after 48 hours. Figures from the UK’s Public Health Scotland show massive real-world consequences to the poisoning of women’s ovaries. The number of women suffering ovarian cancer in 2021 was monstrously higher than rates of ovarian cancer from 2017-2020.
Study shows covid-19 vaccine causes damage to men’s sperm
Second, an Israeli study shows that male vaccine recipients experience significant losses to the “total motile count” of their ejaculated sperm. The vaccinated male recipients showed an average sperm count reduction of 22% three months after taking a two-dose series of the covid-19 injection. A 19% sperm reduction remained in the final measurements. The study, published in the journal Andrology, was the first to show how the covid-19 vaccines would depopulate the Earth by attacking male fertility.
Covid jab heightens risk of spontaneous abortion, abnormal implantation
Finally, the EUA data shows that the vaccine heightens the risk of failed implantation, miscarriage, and spontaneous abortion. It turns out that the covid-19 vaccines damage the endocrine system of the body, causing inflammation that harms normal protein synthesis and hormonal balance.
Buried in the Pfizer documents is an important observation on pregnancy loss. Of the 34 known pregnancies exposed to Pfizer covid-19 vaccination prior to February 2021, a total of 23 ended in spontaneous abortion! Another two pregnancies ended in premature baby death; two were ruled intrauterine death; one was a neonatal death; and five had a pending outcome. Out of the 34 cases, only one of the pregnancies had a normal outcome.
The study that Pfizer used to promote the vaccine’s safety examined the vaccine’s effects on 21 Wistar Han rats compared to 21 rats that didn’t receive the jab. The study ignored an entire data set on the increased risk of supernumerary lumbar rib formation in the vaccinated group. This ignored evidence showed that the vaccine is more likely to cause abnormal foetal formation and birth defects. This birth defect was 295% higher in the vaccinated group. Moreover, the number of fertilized ova that failed to implant was twice more likely in the vaccinated group. The regulators didn’t consider these safety signals, and instead they wrote, “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy.”
How can drug regulators and vaccine manufacturers be trusted at all going forward? With men’s sperm counts falling, with miscarriage, infertility, and ovarian cancer rates going up, the beleaguered populations of the world must stand and say, “Never Again!””
https://expose-news.com/2022/10/19/study-pfizer-infertility-covid-vaccination/
Here is the abstract of a scientific paper outlining these problems:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/andr.13209
“Abstract Background: The development of covid-19 vaccinations represents a notable scientific achievement. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised regarding their possible detrimental impact on male fertility Objective: To investigate the effect of covid-19 BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine on semen parameters among semen donors (SD). Methods: Thirty-seven SD from three sperm banks that provided 216 samples were included in that retrospective longitudinal multicenter cohort study. BNT162b2 vaccination included two doses, and vaccination completion was scheduled 7 days after the second dose. The study included four phases: T0 – pre-vaccination baseline control, which encompassed 1–2 initial samples per SD; T1, T2 and T3 – short, intermediate, and long terms evaluations, respectively. Each included 1–3 semen samples per donor provided 15–45, 75–125 and over 145 days after vaccination completion, respectively. The primary endpoints were semen parameters. Three statistical analyses were conducted: (1) generalized estimated equation model; (2) first sample and (3) samples’ mean of each donor per period were compared to T0. Results: Repetitive measurements revealed −15.4% sperm concentration decrease on T2 (CI −25.5%–3.9%, p = 0.01) leading to total motile count 22.1% reduction (CI −35% – −6.6%, p = 0.007) compared to T0. Similarly, analysis of first semen sample only and samples’ mean per donor resulted in concentration and total motile count (TMC) reductions on T2 compared to T0 - median decline of 12 million/ml and 31.2 million motile spermatozoa, respectively (p = 0.02 and 0.002 respectively) on first sample evaluation and median decline of 9.5 × 106 and 27.3 million motile spermatozoa (p = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively) on samples’ mean examination. T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery without. Semen volume and sperm motility were not impaired. Discussion: This longitudinal study focused on SD demonstrates selective temporary sperm concentration and TMC deterioration 3 months after vaccination followed by later recovery verified by diverse statistical analyses.