Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
This one will light hair on fire.
But at least this paper attempts a cost/benefit analysis, which seems absent in just about everything you hear these days.
I would like to see a debunk (or attempted one) that speaks directly to what is stated (numerous issues/concerns), preferably from other vaccination skeptics (more credibility), since the issues discussed are so polarizing and with overwhelming dosages of Dunning-Kruger pyschology at work among even the experts.
2021-09-14, Ronald N. Kostoff a, *, Daniela Calina b, Darja Kanduc c, Michael B. Briggs d, Panayiotis Vlachoyiannopoulos e, Andrey A. Svistunov f, Aristidis Tsatsakis
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19- attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.
A novel cost-benefit analysis showed that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
WIND: read the whole paper; it is too detailed to do well here. And it requires expert analysis. It raises all sorts of questions/doubts that go unanswered by “experts” following the narrative.
But basically it is saying that the risk/benefit ratio is very poor or even negative for the extremes—the very old and the very young.
Below, just one point raised by the paper:
In the preceding discussion of the Pfizer biodistribution studies, the issue of multiple inoculations on changes in biodistribution was raised. Similarly, the alteration of effects as described above by multiple inoculations must be considered. Each inoculation will have positive as- pects and negative aspects. The positive aspects are the formation of antibodies in the muscle cells and lymphatic system. The negative aspects include, but are not limited to, the potential clotting effects and permeability increases for that fraction of the inoculant that enters the bloodstream.
The first inoculant dose can be viewed as priming the immune system. The immune response will be relatively modest. The second inoculant dose can be expected to elicit a more vigorous immune response. This will enhance the desired antibody production in the muscle cells and lymphatic system, but may also enhance the immune response to both the blood vessel-lining endothelial cells displaying the spike protein and the platelets, causing more severe damage. If a booster (s) inoculation is also required, this may further enhance both the positive and negative immune responses resulting from the second inoculation. While the positive effects are reversible (antibody levels decrease with time), adverse effects may be cumulative and irreversible, and therefore injury and death rates may increase with every additional inoculation.
WIND: if this is accurate, what if you have natural immunity and are then vaccinated? Already is is acknowledged that those with natural immunity often react more strongly to the vaccine.
As with most things, most people will do OK, but some will not. How is medical science even beginning to look at such things? Why would it even be studied? No one in charge wants to hear it, or risk their career by having the wrong findings. Do you think a grant would be approved by the FDA or CDC to study such issues? Or that if given and things looked unfavorable for vaccines, that the study would ever be approved for publication? Studies are routinely never published if they do not support the money train—they just silently disappear.