JAMA published study raise alarms "Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years"; 1 in 500 kids post jab need hospital
by Paul Alexander
Compared with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 was associated with significantly more frequent injection-site, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, or otolaryngologic symptoms; Toepfner
Where is Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Phil Krause when we need them? These 2 were likely the only credibly FDA officials but they resigned in disgust.
This study raises serious concern yet the researchers try to whitewash the findings. You decide based on the presented tables. Yet IMO this study is in line with most if not all, that the COVID vaccine confers no benefit in young people and children, and is harmful. If it did work, if this shot did work and it does not, it is still useless for the risk to children is statistical zero. The question is now the CDC and FDA are trying to get it onto the childhood vaccine schedule. Parents must stand up and say NO.
No! Under no situation will my healthy child get this.
As pointed out by BV and SSmith of this group, I want to outline what was published in limitations so this would set the stage for your viewing:
“First, this study relies on retrospective self-reported data by parental recall, which may not directly reflect what a child had experienced and contains a risk of recall bias (ie, not recalling some non-life-threatening symptoms several months later). The low response rate of 41.1% is a potential source of bias, possibly because the generic survey invitation email could not contain details about the topic for data protection reasons.”
These points or limitations cannot be discounted as you interpret the data.
However, let us go forward:
The research study was observational in design and included 7806 children (median age, 3 years [IQR, 2-4 years]; 51% male, and who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 91.4 (38.8) days since first Pfizer vaccination. The survey response rate was 41.1%. The study appeared to be run for 1 month? “Within the study period of April 14 to May 9, 2022”.
‘In the active-comparator analysis, the probability of any symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.43-1.84), local symptoms (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.38-2.05), musculoskeletal symptoms (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.32-4.94), dermatologic symptoms (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 10.7-4.45), or otolaryngologic symptoms (OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 1.50-27.09) were modestly elevated after BNT162b2 compared with non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.’
While researchers claimed that ‘the overall frequency of adverse events after vaccination with BNT162b2 was comparable with the frequency of adverse events after vaccination with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children younger than 5 years’, I have read the results differently. For example, see these tables:
Table 2 shows IMO that symptoms were elevated for ‘any symptoms’ e.g. 62% higher (OR 1.62), see 4th column from the right, pulmonary, neurologic, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, cardiovascular e.g. 36% higher, gastrointestinal etc. I agree that some are non-significant and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) span from California to China, but these are substantial differences.
Table 1 also lists serious adverse effects and we see no deaths and we know that Ioannidis reports that in persons 0-20 years, the risk of death is 0.0003% (children under 5 as in this study, will be basically ‘0’, statistical zero for death). (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1.full)
We see 4 serious cardiovascular and 4 serious pulmonary serious and 3 serious neurologic effects (2nd column form the left).
and my substack as to the reduced risk of death in children:
You decide if the author’s conclusion makes sense. Balance this on the fact that this was based on self-recall (parental reporting and not the child) so there is room for bias in the data. These are important and great points to consider (SSmith & BV).
The Daily Sceptic did a nice piece also, deserves mention.