There's nothing in these numbers that suggest there was any prevention from infection that could not be explained by other factors like healthy user bias. Also, isn't it commonly accepted at this point across even most of the mainstream that the vaccines have no significant impact on infection and transmission. How can it be that when you give these vaccines to children they prevent infection but we know nothing about serious outcomes when the opposite claim is now made for adults?
There is really no need to discuss these garbage vaccines for kids. The vaccines are largely useless for most adults and likely way too toxic. For children, administration of these products is insanity. ANY side effect would be unacceptable as Covid is a non issue for healthy children.
I am even grateful for the obvious insanity of the FDA, the CDC and also German regulators. It was an eye opener for me. No more vaccines for me, no more vaccines for my kids.
This is, I think, the legacy of our covid response. The trust is gone. Vaccines like the MMR have a long track record of efficacy, but as a new parent I myself struggle with trusting the products as a whole and continually search for and demand a true cost benefit analysis that seems almost impossible to find
People have short term memory. Salk's vaccine paralyzed kids the moment it was licensed (Cutter incident), we certainly went on to have a lot more vaccines after that than before.
An earlier example is Germany, where there was high distrust of vaccination, reversed in the 1930s.
I don't think anything changes until understanding that getting sick, despite being inconvenient, is a natural part of childhood, just like play and sleep, and probably necessary for balanced immune function through life, becomes mainstream.
Thank goodness the authors write their conclusions in an easily quotable summary statement because otherwise I might stumble into the actual data and wonder how you can draw anything of significance when the categories are so broad!
I’m just kidding, of course. Nobody aside from try hards like Brian is actually stumbling into the numbers! I’m just looking for headlines to parrot!
Seriously though, it never fails to amaze me how little statistical ground most conventional wisdom stands on. Though I appreciate the attempts to be charitable here, and I think it is important to say “even granting the benefit of the doubt, the effect here is marginal to meaningless”, sometimes I just want to strangle everyone who doesn’t realize that if you can’t parse what “before/after X dose” even means when you’re looking at data compiled over 14+ months then you’ve already forfeited drawing any firm conclusion. At best (and now I’m being charitable), you’re looking for a signal that requires a follow-up… which would frankly be impossible in this specific situation.
I live in NC now, and the radio is still pushing the bivalent jabs regularly. I haven’t heard anything about them specifically aiming it at the kids, but wow those parents must be regretting that now.
On another note, I know there hasn’t been a lot of released data on this, but is there anyway for you to analyze more deeply the adverse events numbers (and types of adverse events even months later or years?) differentiating between AZ, J and J, Pfizer and Moderna? And between age groups and gender? I think a lot of readers here got the J and J for work and are wondering what types of things to be on the lookout for.
I've heard Children's Health Defense folks ruminate that vaccinating the kids was intended to get liability coverage across the board for when the EUA goes away. Though that wouldn't explain why they went for the babies. Perhaps it has to do with making it easier to push the universal digital ID program that is the pet project of Bill Gates ?
There's nothing in these numbers that suggest there was any prevention from infection that could not be explained by other factors like healthy user bias. Also, isn't it commonly accepted at this point across even most of the mainstream that the vaccines have no significant impact on infection and transmission. How can it be that when you give these vaccines to children they prevent infection but we know nothing about serious outcomes when the opposite claim is now made for adults?
There is really no need to discuss these garbage vaccines for kids. The vaccines are largely useless for most adults and likely way too toxic. For children, administration of these products is insanity. ANY side effect would be unacceptable as Covid is a non issue for healthy children.
I am even grateful for the obvious insanity of the FDA, the CDC and also German regulators. It was an eye opener for me. No more vaccines for me, no more vaccines for my kids.
This is, I think, the legacy of our covid response. The trust is gone. Vaccines like the MMR have a long track record of efficacy, but as a new parent I myself struggle with trusting the products as a whole and continually search for and demand a true cost benefit analysis that seems almost impossible to find
People have short term memory. Salk's vaccine paralyzed kids the moment it was licensed (Cutter incident), we certainly went on to have a lot more vaccines after that than before.
An earlier example is Germany, where there was high distrust of vaccination, reversed in the 1930s.
I don't think anything changes until understanding that getting sick, despite being inconvenient, is a natural part of childhood, just like play and sleep, and probably necessary for balanced immune function through life, becomes mainstream.
I appreciate the objectivity. A rarity these days.
Thank goodness the authors write their conclusions in an easily quotable summary statement because otherwise I might stumble into the actual data and wonder how you can draw anything of significance when the categories are so broad!
I’m just kidding, of course. Nobody aside from try hards like Brian is actually stumbling into the numbers! I’m just looking for headlines to parrot!
Seriously though, it never fails to amaze me how little statistical ground most conventional wisdom stands on. Though I appreciate the attempts to be charitable here, and I think it is important to say “even granting the benefit of the doubt, the effect here is marginal to meaningless”, sometimes I just want to strangle everyone who doesn’t realize that if you can’t parse what “before/after X dose” even means when you’re looking at data compiled over 14+ months then you’ve already forfeited drawing any firm conclusion. At best (and now I’m being charitable), you’re looking for a signal that requires a follow-up… which would frankly be impossible in this specific situation.
I live in NC now, and the radio is still pushing the bivalent jabs regularly. I haven’t heard anything about them specifically aiming it at the kids, but wow those parents must be regretting that now.
On another note, I know there hasn’t been a lot of released data on this, but is there anyway for you to analyze more deeply the adverse events numbers (and types of adverse events even months later or years?) differentiating between AZ, J and J, Pfizer and Moderna? And between age groups and gender? I think a lot of readers here got the J and J for work and are wondering what types of things to be on the lookout for.
not completely pointless if the intent is to kill and injure.
I've heard Children's Health Defense folks ruminate that vaccinating the kids was intended to get liability coverage across the board for when the EUA goes away. Though that wouldn't explain why they went for the babies. Perhaps it has to do with making it easier to push the universal digital ID program that is the pet project of Bill Gates ?