Here are all the reasons why parents should not be giving their kids the COVID shot

Here are all the reasons why parents should not be giving their kids the COVID shot

Think twice, three times, and ever after before you decide to inject healthy American children with COVID gene injections. Why? Because not one healthy child – zero, none – infected with COVID in America has died. Consider them immune and already vaccinated.

Leave our healthy children alone!

In a recent Kaiser survey of parents following the recent FDA’s approval of the vaccine in children as young as 6 months old, parents agreed that their reluctance to have their children jabbed was due to “concerns about the newness of the vaccine and not enough testing or research, concerns over side effects, and worries over the overall safety of the vaccines.” In my opinion, this is very positive: it means parents are “getting it” and are on top of the science more than our CDC, NIH, and FDA health officials are. Estimates are that only 5 percent have opted to vaccinate their child, and in my opinion, this was 5 percent too much.

Where do I begin? The fact is that any rapid mass vaccination campaign that uses a sub-optimal, antigen-specific, non-neutralizing vaccine (such as the COVID vaccines) that does not sterilize the virus, aims at vaccinating all age groups, and takes place during an active ongoing pandemic of a highly mutating and highly infectious respiratory virus with high infectious pressure due to circulating virus, can only result in the generation of a continued series of new variants that are increasingly infectious, increasingly vaccine-resistant (due to viral “immune escape”), and inevitably more virulent—that is, potentially lethal.

In short, the mass vaccination campaign that has been implemented by our governments and their COVID advisors during the COVID pandemic can potentially keep the pandemic going for many years with a potential more virulent sub-variant emerging. Most recently we have the new FDA Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA)  for the bi-valent injections that are based on the legacy Wuhan strain and the BA.4/BA.5 variants. But this pandemic will never come to a close if we keep inoculating with these non-sterilizing sub-optimal injections that do not stop infection, replication, or transmission.

Importantly, this vaccine implementation has been damaging the initiation of education and instruction (training) of the innate immune system, which is the first line of immune defense.  The side effects and deaths that have accrued due to the COVID injection itself have been horrendous and in part due to the vaccine makers not properly testing the vaccine for harms. Harms were never ‘excluded’ due to the small sample sizes, stopping early for benefit, and, critically, not running the studies to the powered sample sizes as well as the proper longer duration. The vaccine studies have never been carried out for durations that would definitively indicate their safety profile.

It is the damage and subversion to the natural innate immune system of children that most concerns me, and I have gained a deep appreciation and understanding of this critical aspect of natural immunity from both Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche and Dr. Mike Yeadon. Parents must understand that when the COVID injection is given to young children (infants, children, younger persons), this prevents the child’s innate antibodies from eliminating the virus confronting them now, and prevents the active training and teaching of the innate immune effector cells on how to properly recognize (glycosylated) viruses and distinguish them from “self” antigens (i.e., distinguish between “self” and “non-self.”). That is, the child’s immune system will not be trained on what it should attack and eliminate versus what it should leave alone because it belongs to the child.

Moreover, the innate immune system will not be properly trained to handle the broad range of pathogens the child will confront in the environment as the child gets older. The training of innate antibodies and the innate immune system educates the immune response to pathogens confronted at present (like the COVID virus), pathogens to be confronted in the future, and the differentiation of ‘self’ versus ‘non-self’ components as well as all the variations in-between. These can include ‘self-like’ and ‘self-mimicking,’ given the virus uses components of the self to trick the immune system. It can take on the appearance of the self to evade the immune system. Therefore, it is a critical education that mitigates vulnerability to auto-immune disease.

This is a critical window of innate immunity training in early childhood development. Any immune system must learn at an early stage of life (once passive maternal immune protection is no longer available, i.e., at about 4 to 6 months) to provide for a healthy and appropriate immune response in the future. Interference with the initiating foundational education of a child’s developing innate immune system can cause a COVID-vaccinated child to be less capable of handling glycosylated viruses (and glycosylated pathogens in general). This predisposes such children to immune pathology (e.g., autoimmune disease). Moreover, such children will be at risk of serious illness from a broad range of pathogens and not only glycosylated viruses. We are seeing a range of illnesses in children now in the era of COVID vaccination, and we argue that this can be explained in part by damage to and subversion of the immune system.

The issue is that the COVID gene injection induces antigen-specific vaccinal antibodies that are highly specific to the target antigen, and they can potentially outcompete and sideline the innate antibodies from their binding to viruses and thus the training of the innate immune system. By the vaccinal antibodies binding to the antigen (e.g., receptor binding domain, N-terminal domain, and other binding sites), this blocks the innate antibodies from binding and as such its capacity to clear out the virus. This can render the child’s immune system sub-optimal and dysfunctional, and thus the child will be very vulnerable to pathogens and pathology.

The issue is that the COVID gene injection induces antigen-specific vaccinal antibodies that are highly specific to the target antigen, and they can potentially outcompete and sideline the innate antibodies from their binding to viruses and thus the training of the innate immune system. By the vaccinal antibodies binding to the antigen (e.g., receptor binding domain, N-terminal domain, and other binding sites), this blocks the innate antibodies from binding and as such its capacity to clear out the virus. This can render the child’s immune system sub-optimal and dysfunctional, and thus the child will be very vulnerable to pathogens and pathology.

Parents must understand that not one healthy child in America died from getting a COVID infection.

Dr. Marty Makary’s research team (Johns Hopkins) showed this conclusively. (Johns Hopkins and FAIR health study utilized nearly one half of the U.S.’s health insurance data.) They found that 100 percent of pediatric COVID-19 deaths were in children with a pre-existing, chronic, severe health condition.

Their study showed that not one healthy child died from COVID during the pandemic in the United States.

What does this suggest to you as a parent? Well, it shows what I and others have argued for 2.5 years now: that children have basically zero risk. It shows that, based on proper risk-benefit calculations, children absolutely do not need these injections. I argue no child needs them, but parents may consider vaccinating their high-risk child who has serious comorbidities (that is, has chronic severe health conditions, or is immunocompromised). This can be a consideration for children who are seriously overweight or obese. This should be done case-by-case and is not the same as mandating vaccines across the board for all age-groups and certainly not in any healthy child given their near statistical zero risk of severe outcome if COVID infected. This is certain, given that the vaccine has been shown to be harmful, causing myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, bleeding, and other side effects.

Recall that Marshall et al. reported on “7 cases of acute myocarditis or myopericarditis in healthy male adolescents who presented with chest pain all within 4 days after the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination.”

So why would a parent inject their healthy child or teenagers with these COVID injections? There is no basis to do so. None! Even the new MIS-C cases (potentially linked to COVID) as Makary reported, have decreased to zero. Furthermore, “this week, a CDC report on child hospitalizations for COVID-19 in March and April, 2021 found zero deaths in the entire cohort of children studied.”

There is an important opinion written by pediatricians that may be a year old now but is very seminal and applicable. They wrote, “As pediatricians, we say please don’t use precious coronavirus vaccines on healthy children.” Makary has pointed to this piece by Malley and Finn, in which the authors point to the need for safety to be proven before the vaccines are offered. “The universal vaccination of healthy children 2 to 11 years old simply shouldn’t be a priority and may ultimately prove unnecessary. The relatively small group of children at risk because of underlying medical conditions should of course be offered the coronavirus vaccines, once they have been established as safe and effective for that age group,” they write.

Let me remind you of the seminal paper by Turner et al. published a year ago in Nature, “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans,” showing us that natural immunity based on prior infection is life-long. My argument is that our children are largely immune, and we must not submit them to this COVID gene injection. Even the CDC reported in February 2022 (MMWR) that the immunity in children was approximately 75 percent to 80 percent. At this time, it is near 100 percent.

We also knew that long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) provided robust protection. We always knew this (see 1,2,3,4,5,6,7). We also knew that once you were COVID-recovered, you were at significantly lower risk of reinfection with the COVID virus and that the virus had to be appreciably different (substantially mutated on the target antigen) to breach immunity (see 8,9,10). Omicron is highly infectious (e.g. BA.4 and BA.5 clades) and presents as a sufficiently different virus, given the multiple mutations on the spike protein, to present the immune system with a challenge and a potential breach. However, the predominant symptoms are mild, akin to the common cold.

We know of the robust study by Shrestha et al. that looked at employees of the Cleveland Health System; they reported that “not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.” This was another seminal study that was ignored by mainstream media, for it showed that natural COVID recovered immunity was robust and called into question the wisdom of vaccinating COVID-recovered people. These potent studies published in 2020 and 2021 were disregarded by the legacy media, the CDC, NIH, and FDA because the deceptive narrative relied on the idea that natural immunity was inferior to vaccinal immunity. But they all knew better than that. They all knew they were were misleading the public to force the use of vaccines. They were lying!

We also know that natural immunity (innate and acquired-adaptive) can last 100 years.  In Yu et al.: “Neutralizing antibodies derived from the B cells of 1918 influenza pandemic survivors,” the authors wrote, “here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic.” If our children are now immune from near certain prior exposure to COVID virus, infection, and recovery – and they were largely asymptomatic – then don’t bother them with these gene injections.

Are children at risk for COVID that would warrant a vaccine?

Let me remind you that the infection mortality rate (IFR) is (and has remained) roughly similar (or likely lower once all infection data are collected) to seasonal influenza. Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis identified 36 studies (43 estimates) along with an additional 7 preliminary national estimates (50 pieces of data) and concluded that among people under 70 years old across the world, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00 percent to 0.57 percent, with a median of 0.05 percent across the different global locations (with a corrected median of 0.04 percent). Survival for those under 70 years is 99.5 percent. Moreover, with a focus on children, “[t]he estimated IFR is close to zero for children and young adults.” The global data is unequivocal that “deaths from COVID are incredibly rare” in children.

The published evidence is conclusive that the risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 in children is almost nil (statistical zero), and this evidence has accumulated for well over a year now. In fact, we knew this for over 18 months. It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading to adults, as household transmission studies show, or of taking it home, or of becoming ill, or of dying, and this is settled scientific global evidence. Children are less at risk of developing severe illness courses, and also are far less susceptible and likely to spread and drive SARS-CoV-2. This implies that any mass injection/inoculation or even clinical trials on children with such near zero risk of spread and illness or death is contraindicated, unethical, and potentially associated with significant harm.

I would also add material (see 6 pieces of evidence below) I published in Jeff Tucker’s magazine Brownstone, asking Pfizer to leave our children alone. The reality is that children are not candidates for the COVID vaccines are immune, and can be considered naturally “fully vaccinated.”

Is there more evidence I wish to table in my clarion call to you parents? Yes, there is:

1) The virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has less expression and presence in the nasal epithelium of young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways). This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children, as Patel and Bunyavanich reported. By bypassing this natural protection (i.e., that limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid, this could release vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG), and generated spike into the circulation that could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reaction.

2) Research (August 2021) by Loske deepened our understanding of this natural biological/molecular protection even further by showing that pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection, resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.

3) When one is vaccinated, or gets infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution, and clonal evolution of B cells which is key to encoding humoral immune memory. There is research evidence by Yang published in Science (May 2021) that blood examined from children retrieved prior to COVID-19 pandemic have memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2, suggestive of the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses. This is supported by Mateus et al. who reported on T cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection).

4) Building on research work by Kumar and Faber, Weisberg and Farber et al. suggested that the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. They argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses.

5) A Yale University report (Yale and Albert Einstein College of Medicine report, Sept. 18, 2020, in the journal Science Translational Medicine) indicated that children and adults display very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This helps explain why they have far less illness or mortality from COVID. “Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 outbreak, scientists have observed that children infected with the virus tend to fare much better than adults,” they wrote.

Continuing, “researchers reported that levels of two immune system molecules — interleukin 17A (IL-17A), which helps mobilize immune system response during early infection, and interferon gamma (INF-g), which combats viral replication — were strongly linked to the age of the patients. The younger the patient, the higher the levels of IL-17A and INF-g, the analysis showed…these two molecules are part of the innate immune system, a more primitive, non-specific type of response activated early after infection.”

6) Dowell et al. (2022) published research on antibody and cellular immunity in children (aged 3-11 years) and adults. Their findings confirm a biological basis for why SARS-CoV-2 infection is generally mild or asymptomatic in children. They reported that antibody responses against spike protein were elevated in children, and seroconversion “boosted responses against seasonal Beta-coronaviruses through cross-recognition of the S2 domain. Neutralization of viral variants was comparable between children and adults. Spike-specific T cell responses were more than twice as high in children and were also detected in many seronegative children, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive responses to seasonal coronaviruses.”

Key findings were that children maintained and preserved “antibody and cellular responses 6 months after infection, whereas relative waning occurred in adults. Spike-specific responses were also broadly stable beyond 12 months. Therefore, children generate robust, cross-reactive, and sustained immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 with focused specificity for the spike protein.”

What can be concluded? Pulling these emerging research findings together strengthens the case that children are not candidates for the COVID vaccines and are to be considered already “fully and completely COVID-vaccinated.” Furthermore, as lucidly outlined by Whelan, it is potentially disastrous to children if we move forward with vaccines without proper study of the possible harms to them. Vaccine developers failed to conduct the proper safety studies and for the duration that would unravel any harms.

Is the COVID injection a consideration for a child who has underlying medical conditions or is obese or immunocompromised? Maybe, and this is a risk management decision you parents must make with your doctor. I argue that this should be done on case-by-case basis. This is your decision to make as parents. However, know that you are charged with protecting your child. You must think carefully, given the lack of benefit from the injection, its known harms from the injection, and near zero risk of death from COVID in children.

There should be no mandate, and no healthy child should be in receipt of these injections, none! There is no basis as children’s risk of death from COVID is near zero. We know that there is a steep age-risk curve that places children at basically zero. This was so in January 2020 and remains so in September 2022. We know children have a potent innate immune system that, still developing and being trained, is robust enough to protect them. There is no case made by anyone, no public health official or agency, that justifies these COVID injections for healthy children. No one has made the case, not CDC, not NIH, not FDA, not Fauci, not Francis Collins, not Walensky, not Bourla, not Bancel – no one!

Leave the children alone. The recent FDA approval (and CDC rubber-stamp) of the gene injection in children 6 months old to 5 years was a catastrophic mistake, not only because there was no evidence to support this, but because the evidence put forth by the vaccine makers was ludicrously thin and, really, non-existent. The FDA should hang its head in shame for this EUA approval. The FDA is acting very recklessly and dangerously.