(source)
The CDC has been caught lying once again, this time in its mad rush to help get the experimental ‘Covid19’ injection into the arms of as many children and teens as possible before the increasingly clear link between the ‘vaccine’ and a myriad of serious harms threatens to slow the already stagnant vaccination rates in this country.
As anyone who has looked at the CDC’s own data on ‘Covid19’ deaths and hospitalizations of children should be well aware, the ‘virus’ poses virtually no threat whatsoever to anyone 25 and younger, while children are at the lowest risk of all, statistically so insignificant that the possibility of death by ‘Covid19’ in children, percentage wise, is quite literally zero. Obviously this data is not conducive to incentivizing parents to subject their kids to the unapproved experimental injection, nor does it serve to motivate the teens themselves, thus the need to offer wide variety of bribes as incentive.
But this doesn’t keep the CDC from lying to paint an entirely different picture, so the agency simply claims that hospitalization is rising among unvaccinated teens, contrary to its own data. How could they get away with such a blatant lie, one might wonder? It’s simple really, they just cut the graph off at the last point when reported hospitalization of teen ‘Covid19’ patients peaked, despite the hospitalizations having since then plummeted.
It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, lying with data, and for those who may not be aware of the data itself, this CDC lie might just convince them that hospitalization of unvaccinated teens is on the rise, when the truth of the matter is in fact quite the opposite, they’ve been on a sharp decline since March 17 all the way into the first week of June when the contagious CDC lies are repeated for several days in a row.
Furthermore, we now also know that the official ‘Covid19’ child hospitalization numbers themselves are wildly overinflated, by over 40% in fact, according to new studies - and this has even been reported by the mainstream media, so it can’t be relegated to the realm of ‘anti-vaccine’ fake news ‘conspiracy’ crap, even by the establishment, so is instead ignored.
At the same time, a meta-analysis of all of the available official (overinflated) data shows us just how low risk young people truly are, in regards to ‘Covid19’.
Entitled “Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications”, the systematic review encompassed a total of 27 studies that “satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, and the analysis found what by now most of us are already well aware of, that there is an “exponential relationship between age and IFR [infection fatality rate] for COVID-19.”
The estimated age-specific IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85.
While many will dispute the accuracy of this estimated fatality rate in the elderly, for a number of reasons I have previously covered including artificially overinflation of ‘Covid19’ death statistics, this analysis depends on the official numbers that we know are highly inaccurate and still finds an incredibly low fatality rate among the young, truly statistically insignificant among children under the age of 10.
But still the CDC along with all the other establishment vaccine-pushers continue to blindly repeat the lie that they know the risk of harm from the experimental injection outweighs the benefits, despite the potential for harm still being studied and thus not yet firmly established. Nonetheless an increasingly clear link between the injection and increased risk of heart inflammation is being established, becoming so clear that even the establishment CNN was forced to report on this risk.
Most notable among the growing evidence of child harm caused by the injection is a June 1 report coming straight from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which:
states that within 30 days of receiving the second dose of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, "there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16-24-year-olds."
This finding is statistically significant, as the number of cases of heart inflammation in young people who were vaccinated was higher than expected, in other words higher than naturally occurs in those who are not vaccinated. This is a strong indication that that the mRNA injections are indeed responsible for causing this harm. Indeed, “a source familiar with the situation told CNN it's appearing more and more likely that there is a real link between the vaccine and the cases.”
It looks like this is a biological phenomenon rather than a chance event," the source said. "It looks to be a pattern and not just random."
Nonetheless the CDC blindly regurgitates the establishment line that “benefits of Covid-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks - "including the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis," - “which is swelling of the tissue around the heart.”
But since the risks are yet unknown and still being assessed, it is absolutely impossible to know that the benefits outweighs the risks, and CDC’s claim to the contrary is a lie. They don’t know that the benefits outweigh the risks, they do admit that the rate of heart inflammation in vaccinated children is “higher than expected,” and yet they have put off an emergency meeting to assess this likely risk for an entire week to maximize vaccine uptake among kids.
There have been a total of at least 900 total cases of heart inflammation in the US reported to VAERS, and the CDC acknowledges it is aware of 226 cases in children alone, but it won’t recommend a pause in child vaccination while the rising number of these cases are investigated, and it puts off scheduling an emergency meeting on the matter for a whole week, following at least a week that the agency was aware the number of these cases in children was “higher than expected.”
This is criminal in nature, and the CDC’s continuing insistence that the benefits of the ‘vaccine’ outweigh the risks when the real risk of ‘Covid19’ according to even the CDC data shows that children are already at zero risk of serious harm from the disease, is wrong on so many levels.
All CNN can manage to do in defense of the vaccination of children in the face of such compelling evidence of vaccine harm is repeat the CDC propaganda and baseless claims of President Joe Biden.
Given the risk of COVID-19 infection in adolescents, CDC continues to strongly recommend that adolescents age 12 to 17 get vaccinated."
For young people who may think this doesn't affect you, listen up, please: This virus, even a mild case, can be with you for months. It will impact on your social life. It could have long-term implications for your health that we don't even know about yet or fully understand yet," President Joe Biden said at a White House briefing June 2, urging young people to get vaccinated for themselves and "to protect those more vulnerable than you: your friends, your family, your community."
For starters, MedPage Today strongly disagrees with this establishment assessment, in a piece entitled - “Think Twice Before Giving the COVID Vax to Healthy Kids — Based on the data to date, there's no compelling case for it right now” - written by a medical professional, unlike the highly propagandized opinions of the likes of vaccine-pushing Big-Pharma puppet politicians like Joe Biden. Martin Makary MD, MPH, and Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today, writes on June 10, that: “In reviewing the medical literature and news reports, and in talking to pediatricians across the country, I am not aware of a single healthy child in the U.S. who has died of COVID-19 to date.”
In fact, not one single child death attributed to ‘Covid19’ was found in a healthy child who did not have a pre-existing condition.
To investigate further, my research team at Johns Hopkins partnered with FAIR health to study pediatric COVID-19 deaths using approximately half of the nation's health insurance data. We found that 100% of pediatric COVID-19 deaths were in children with a pre-existing condition, solidifying the case to vaccinate any child with a comorbidity.
“Given that the risk of a healthy child dying is between zero and infinitesimally rare,” Dr. Makary writes, “it's understandable that many parents are appropriately asking, why vaccinate healthy kids at all?”
The author goes on to list the many arguments against vaccinating healthy children, all coming from a pro-vaccine viewpoint, documenting the low child risk posed by ‘Covid19’ and risk of harm posed by adverse effects of the injection. The article clearly lets the reader see that even among the most pro-vaccine ‘Covid19’ believers, anyone with any intellectual honesty at all will admit that there’s really no reason to be pushing this injection on the young.
As far as the specific risk of heart inflammation in children goes, the Israeli Ministry of Health has released “the most detailed analysis yet of cases of myocarditis following Pfizer vaccination,” CNN reported. "There is a likelihood of a link between receiving a second dose of vaccine and the onset of myocarditis in young men aged 16-30, and the link is stronger in young people aged 16-19 relative to other ages,” the Israeli Health Ministry statement made on June 2nd read.
All CNN can do is follow this up by pointing out that “there's concern among public health experts that upon hearing of this possible myocarditis link, parents will be hesitant to take their children to be vaccinated,” clearly showing us that the ‘experts’ care more about getting more injections into arms of children than they do about any actual harm caused by the injections. This is truly both sickening and disturbing.
And while the establishment propaganda mouthpieces like CNN blindly repeat the CDC lie that the injection ‘benefits outweigh the risk’, the FDA’s own advisory panel has in fact concluded the exact opposite.
During an FDA meeting Thursday to discuss granting Emergency Use Authorization for COVID vaccines for children under 12, several experts spoke out against the plan, saying the benefits don’t outweigh the risks for young children.
One of those vaccine experts was Peter Doshi, PhD, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor the British Medical Journal.
Pointing to Pfizer’s trial of 12- to 15-year-olds which supported the recent EUA, Doshi said the harms outweighed the benefits and those who had the placebo were “better off” than those who received the vaccine.”
“Three in 4 kids had fatigue and headaches, around half had chills and muscle pain, around 1 in 4 to 5 had fever and joint pain. The list goes on. In sum, all the fully vaccinated 12- to 15-year-olds avoided symptomatic COVID but most wouldn’t have gotten COVID even without the vaccine. So, the benefit is small but it came at the price of side effects that were mild to moderate in severity and lasted a few days.”
Kim Witczak, an FDA consumer representative, expressed great concerns over the premature approval of COVID vaccines for children. Witczak said data shows children are neither in danger or dangerous and questioned the timing of last Friday’s CDC announcement of the rise in children being hospitalized with COVID.
“The truth is we don’t really know that much about these vaccines,” Witczak said. “The ‘safe and effective’ messaging is being thrown around by everyone from government officials to media, community, religious leaders, to Hollywood celebrities. Then you add in all the promotions like multimillion dollar lotteries, free donuts, free shots at the local bar and so on. This subconsciously creates the illusion that there are no downsides whatsoever, nothing to weigh or consider.”
She concluded that: ”We simply cannot ignore the growing evidence of harm and just accept the narrative that adverse reactions are a good thing — and that means the shot is working.”
Others echoed this sentiment, while some disagreed, repeating the arguments made by the CDC, which, as we’ve seen, are not supported by the available data.
And while the whole of the establishment blindly continues to repeat the ‘benefits outweigh the risk’ mantra, a senior Australia official has now gone on record stating the opposite, that the risk of developing blood clots in the AstraZeneca shot is “5-8 times higher” than supposed seven weeks ago, when this ‘vaccine’ was first confirmed to be the cause of a deadly blood clotting disorder occurring in people following injection, stating unambiguously that: “The potential benefits are outweighed by the potential harms of the AZ vaccine for all age groups... up through 69 yrs of age.”
If the risks do not outweigh the benefits in the elderly, how much more so must this be the case with children who are at zero risk of serious injury from ‘Covid19’!
You can’t continue to insist that an experimental injection which is still being tested for safety and which has given birth to an entirely new phenomenon now officially called “vaccine induced thrombosis”, the condition causing the deadly blood clots reported following all four widely used injections across the west, is somehow also completely ‘safe’.
For those inclined to believe the official narrative and discount all skepticism and dissent as inherently conspiratorial or anti-vaccine, one might at least want to ask themself why exactly the CDC would need to lie about the data to maintain a desired rate of ‘vaccine’ uptake among children and teens if indeed their claim that the benefits outweigh the risk is actually true.
I don't have children of my own but I have tons of nephews and nieces and none of them wanted to be injected by a potentially risky vaccine. And since I consider myself as a responsible adult, I won't be pushing them to take the vaccine unless proven with more clinical trials that they're safe to use.
Be careful you don't get called "the conservative paranoid uncle" like they do up here in Canada to men who talk to family members about these kinds of issues. They make it a political issue (or mental health issue) when it's just common sense and freedom.
Don't worry, I don't live in Canada or in the west for that matter so they can't call me a conservative, or even cancel me. That, and the fact that Asians don't usually care about their political nonsense.
Well in that way you're lucky. I'm sure you have your unique issues to deal with but man am I ever sick of the 2 party fake left-right paradigm. What a ridiculous pile of garbage to base a political system upon.
Did you see the video showing the deletion of reported deaths on the VAERS database? He estimated 150K reports being deleted. They're covering up the damage. This is beyond fraud!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6qOEk3p7uMB7/
This is one reason that if you see some information like this a screen grab and text grab should be done so there is a backup. If you actually post something about it when you do the grab there will also be a time stamped undeniable post recording it.
I know hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to talk about doing this after the fact.
There is also the internet archive and the wayback machine which is a boon for saving pages they delete or edit to hide stuff.
Yep those are great as long as the catch and archive it. If they do then you're in good shape and don't have to do anything extra. They don't archive everything so if you think it is important snag what you can and point it out to other people using some fashion they can't erase.
My 20 month old son has never been jabbed by anything, except at birth they poked his heel and took a drop of his blood (likely for a secret DNA test and storage). But nothing has gone into him, just 100% plant based nutrition from birth, and he's very happy and healthy. Also very cute :P
CONGRATULATIONS!! I too have a totally unvaccinated grandaughter also totally plantbased. 7 months old now and ridiculously healthy and strong and cute of course.
I've read articles before that a plant based only diet for children leads to their brains not developing like they should. Proteins I guess are essential for brain growth.
Hmm, well proteins aren't what is most essential for early brain development, that's fats. For example, omega 3 oils which come from grasses like flax, from hemp seeds, etc.
But if you're after protein, remember that your body can't use protein directly from your diet, it has to make protein from amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. We humans (animals) can't produce all those amino acids, which is whey they're called essential amino acids. You can get all the amino acids you need from your diet, and they can come from plants, fungi, bacteria, or animals. It's possible to eat other animals for nutrients, but to break down their proteins (body parts) into amino acids we can use, takes a lot of resources, and does damage to our bodies. Only then can we assemble the amino acids into the specific proteins our bodies need to live, grow, repair, etc. It's much healthier to get our amino acids directly from plants rather than eating other animals that have done so.
So, no, there's no reason for children or anyone to be eating anything but plants for their nutrition.
Perhaps you were mis-remembering what you read in some article somewhere... or maybe the writer of the article wasn't very educated on nutrition.
I put together this graphic to help people understand:
And I wrote this post, which contains all the info anyone could need on this topic.
After I wrote the comment and went off line I did wonder if it was the fat and not the proteins. I will though stick with the experts who have studied the issue over decades and compared results, it would be beyond me as to why they said there are certain whatever you want to label them in animal fat that you can't get from plants if that was not true. There's really no bias reason for doing such.
I'm an expert too, and I've studied for decades too, but what you mean is you'll stick with people who tell you what you want to hear.
What exactly is it you think you've heard, the thing you're referring to when you say there's "no bias reason". Is it that there's something in animals you need? If so, which other experts told you this? Can you point me to a study or essay they've done on the topic.
I wonder how they account for the millions of people who never use anything that involved animals in any way, some right fro the moment of conception, like my 20 month old son? So far, he's healthier and smarter and happier than most other babies the same age, so it doesn't seem to be doing him any harm yet. Do you really think there's something in animals he needs? And you need? And I need? Well I haven't had any of it (whatever it is) in several years now. Same with my wife. And same with dozens of people I know. And same with the human species at various points in our evolution. We CAN digest other animals, but we sure don't need to.
But please, point me to the evidence brought forth by your experts. The ones you believe without investigating, and base major life decisions on.
It has slowly been coming back to me since it's been years that I read it. Last night I realized the issue was a scientist wondering why brains use to be so much smaller or something of that nature. Brains are larger now because of a change in diet from plants to animals. I googled for it and the only place you can get it is from eating meats, seafoods or in supplements, Creatine would be the subject matter at hand, they recommend that vegetarians use a creatine supplement.
https://www.nasw.org/article/eating-meat-drove-evolution-our-big-powerful-brain#:~:text=In%201992%2C%20researchers%20proposed%20that%20this%20gradual%20expansion,from%20muscle%20and%20fat%20stores%20in%20the%20body.
The main stream media and governments of the world have misreported and misinformed the general public about every aspect of COVID-19. Everything from the origin, the way it spreads, the treatments, the number of cases, the number of deaths, everything has been misinformation. I believe the narrative all along was to get everyone to accept these experimental treatments. How many people will have to die or be injured before they pull them?