SEARCH
Fauci: “very likely vaccines will be available for children from 5 to 11 within the first week or two of November”
Related: Dr Anthony Fauci, ethics in medicine, gear, gears of the machine, SARS-CoV-2 aka COVID-19 aka Coronavirus, vaccination
re: Vaccination of Children on the Altar of COVID Fanaticism is Legalized Child Abuse — the Feds Now Want to Vaccinate 28 Million Children Who are at Ultra Low Risk for COVID Issues
re: ethics in medicine
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
The FDA advisory committee has approved the Pfizer vaccine for Emergency Use Authorization for children aged 5-11. Regulatory approval and CDC recommendations are not yet in place.
"If all goes well, and we get the regulatory approval, and the recommendations from the CDC, it's entirely possible, if not, very likely, that vaccines will be available for children from 5 to 11 within the first week or two of November,"
— Dr. Anthony Fauci***, chief medical adviser for the White House, said in an interview on Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
Children do not need this vaccine. Children are very poor spreaders of COVID, and excepting rare cases of highly unhealthy kids*, they shrug it off. Dubious risk/benefit analysis, if not an outright criminally negligent one**. Giving vaccines to kids who do not need it in order to protect older people is a sign of a society turned to evil. Yet we’re going ahead with mandates. Ethics in medicine is an oxymoron.
No one has any idea what such vaccines might do to the rapidly-growing bodies of small children, a year or two or ten from now. We just now learn that antibiotics given early can change the brain, permanently—showing the gross ignorance of the medical profession when it comes to unanticipated downstream side effects. Just about everything in medicine has some horror story or another—it’s the history of medicine and “experts”. And now these “experts” just want to try things out, and see what happens?
Follow the money.
As for efficacy: it’s patently absurd to claim that the endpoint of a study is how many antibodies are there in a short time after vaccination. The real endpoint is how the guinea pigs fare against a control group when exposed to COVID. You can be sure that such information will not be forthcoming. And you can be sure that 99% of doctors are clueless about that basic point of medical science, and robotically accept the antibody argument as a valid endpoint****. That is, those rapidly-declining antibodies—maybe even faster in kids? Get your bi-annual booster shot!
* Unhealthy at-risk children can certainly be vaccinated, as their risk/benefit ratio may be much more favorable. But that can be done evaluating each personal situation.
** For each million vaccinations of children, the risk/benefit analysis must weigh all harms of the vaccine against the benefits to that group. It seems highly unlikely that excepting high-risk children (who can be vaccinated!), that for the other 99.9% of children, the risk/benefit is probably NEGATIVE when all factors are weight properly. But we are in an era of anti-science in medicine.
*** This quote from an “expert” who signed off on experiments letting sand flies eat (alive) the faces/eyes/ears of immobilized beagles (dogs) whose vocal cords were removed so they could not bark incessantly from unspeakable agony, so as to not inconvenience the sadists (researchers) doing the experiment. This person is making decisions about your children, who have as little say in the matter as the beagles.
**** The same intellectual vaccuum applies all over the place in medicine, such as with statins, where cholesterol levels are used as a proxy for the real endpoint—net change in mortality, plus side effects.
