A Tale of Two Children

An Orphania™ Vignette

Natalie is 8. Despite official, up-and-up, Zoom-mediated Emergency Authorization for an experimental mRNA transfection, her parents neglect to have her immune system modified.

In January of 2022, she comes down with a cold. A medical test returns a positive for a version of coronavirus with the glycoprotein that the mRNA transfection would have attempted to resemble.

By all appearances, she recovers quickly.

The long term effects of this encounter with the virus, however, are unknown.

Known:

• Natalie recovered quickly.

Unknown:

• Long term effects of infection with the virus.

Across the street, Vaxonica, also 8, comes down with a cold at the same time.

Vaxonica’s parents, however, had elected to have her injected with the Emergency-Authorized experimental mRNA transfection in November. An official medical test confirms that this did nothing to prevent infection with the coronavirus with the glycoprotein the mRNA transfection attempts to resemble. But no one in Orphania, including Vaxonica’s parents, seriously expected it to.

Like Natalie, she recovers quickly.

Known:

• Vaxonica recovered quickly.

Unknown:

• Long term effects of infection with the virus.

• Whether Vaxonica’s mRNA transfection made those hypothetical long term effects any better, at all.¹

Attacking the onslaught of gleeful, bad-faith arguments proliferating throughout the media over the last month to encourage the Covid-vaccination of children would be pointless. None of these arguments are meant to be seriously convincing.

They are meant to brainwash, and to a clear-minded parent the best “counter argument” is the argument itself: To actually read it, is to behold its sheer sloganeering, its scientific weakness and emotional desperation. “I don’t actually have a single, non-manufacturer-fabricated positive fact about the vaccine’s effect on your child to offer you before you inject it into her, what do you want from me?!”²

Yesterday, however, I was reading a diary entry by a parent who subjected their children to the experiment. Forced to suspend disbelief for a moment - to suppose that, to this ostensibly “rational” decision, there was anything other than a crazed, delirious belief that the author’s children were Making Science Mad and that has to stop or the virus might hurt me! - I perceived clearly the last refuge a “rational” mind would take, after being confronted with months of evidence of the Covid vaccines’ incredible known and possible (theoretically likely) harms on the young:

But we don’t know the long-term effects of infection in children, either.

This rationale, by setting the “benefit” side of the Covid-vaccine ledger into the invisible future - since the trial itself admitted that no “benefit” can possibly be observed in the short term - at once turns the entire debate over child-Covid-vaccination on its head, and upends itself: An unobservable, hypothetical “future benefit” is just that.

We do not know if mRNA transfection makes any difference to the long-term effects of infection in children.

Covid-vaccination of children is, at best, a bet that the injection will somehow improve the hypothetical, unlikely long-term harms of infection. But what is the mechanism of that “somehow”? Has any Expert™ even proposed one?

If these harms can “somehow” strike in absence of severe illness - children do not get severely ill from SARS-CoV-2 at even the same rates as other common viruses against which they are not vaccinated - and if the Covid vaccines cannot prevent mild infection, how can they possibly prevent these hypothetical long-term harms?³

With that out of the way, I can cease my suspension of disbelief and go back to my proper understanding of the author’s real intentions for sacrificing their children.

1. Bullet three, obviously, but I am being minimalist: Whether it made them worse.

2. Thus, extra caution over offering a counter-argument, as to do so might lend the appearance of solidity to a phantasm.

3. Obviously, one could propose that antibodies against the spike protein inhibit damage from shedding of the virus into the bloodstream. This inhibition of damage accounts for the severe outcome efficacy which is observable in adults (and likely will never be statistically observable in children). This is a problematic argument. There is no reason to pre-suppose long-term harms from non-existent or limited viral shedding during asymptomatic or mild infection; there is no reason to pre-suppose that those long-term harms can possibly exceed the harms of direct injection of the mRNA script which prompts cells to express the same protein to begin with; there is no reason to pre-suppose that direct injection leading to antibodies can in fact “discount” the hypothetical long-term harms of limited viral shedding during mild infection; there is no reason to pre-suppose that such a “discount” can exceed the direct damage from transfection-induced spike; there is no reason to pre-suppose that the “discount” continues to apply after antibodies fade (with boosters implying that the hypothetical “discount” must be “pre-purchased” multiple times before it can be collected, depending on the child’s luck, multiplying the price paid). It is only another bet, with no possible theoretical or evidentiary support.