Receipt of BNT162b2 Vaccine and COVID-19 Ambulatory Visits in US Children Younger Than 5 Years

"Receiving at least 2 doses of wild-type BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 ED or UC and outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2809748

And Benny wonders why OP is ridiculed........

COVID-19 Ambulatory Visits in US Children Younger Than 5 Years

Da fuk?

Isn't covid19 suppose to be not so harsh on kids, anyway?

Not one of my six grandkids from ages 3 to 12 got the dose and not one of them has been to the doctors since. 4 had Covid and were back outside exercising within 2 days

Then again, none are out of shape or eat carry outs

Great news!

I think it's a stretch to conclude these 10's of thousands of children are all "out of shape and eat carry outs", but I'll trust you, bro

How out of shape can a 3-year old be?

More like adults freaking out because their kid got the sniffles, and rushing them to the hospital......

Sounds like something you would do if you got a positive test, rush to the hospital and demand meds.

I'm not convinced many people are rushing to the hospital for sniffles.

Well when the past three and a half years presented this virus as instant death, why wouldn't they?

Look at you for example, you can't let this **** go, still making Rona threads and the need to mask up and get jabbed up.....you, like Benny, Patt, Sillie, saved your home tests and masks from last year.

They are. Go into any walk in, or emergency its full of people with the literal sniffles. Couple in the constant fear campaign for the past couple years and people will lose their minds over the sniffles.

Simply put. I am sure ive had covid but have no clue for sure. Why....never tested, dont care.

Is this relative to your experience in walk in clinics and/or emergency rooms prior to covid?

Your fear porn won’t work here and we won’t be vaccinating our kids. Now please go step in front of a semi

What do you think suggests fear in that study?

Had it twice, didn't get tested, so does that mean I didn't have it? Since Rainman only counts official cases?

Looks like another sheeet Pfizer sponsored datamining study of no significance whatsoever, but unfortunately it is paywalled everywhere. My guess is there was no difference in hospitalization rates or the COVID vaccinated group had a higher hospitalization rate since that wasn't the tagline to pull people in. "You'll test negative, but be hospitalized at the same rate as a non-vaccinated child! Have a booster!" Also interesting how the wording "at least 2" was used, because it showed that 3 boosters was associated with a higher chance of testing positive vs two.

More or less useful than 30-40 mice getting injected with a booster and not dying immediately... unsure.

"Receiving at least 2 doses of wild-type BNT162b2 vaccine was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 ED or UC and outpatient visits in children younger than 5 years."

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-09-...r-viruses.html

"New research published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology shows thatchildren who got "vaccinated" for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) [color=red]now suffer from a form of AIDS that has left their weakened immune systems prone to catching not just COVID but also all sorts of other viruses and bacteria.

Within weeks after getting a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA shot, children begin to develop progressively weakened immunity to the point that they eventually succumb to whatever diseases they happen to encounter while simply living their normal lives.[color]

In such scenarios, unvaccinated children with strong and healthy immune systems will be just fine.Meanwhile, those who got jabbed and now have broken immunity will be like walking disease carriers.

"Our study showed that, in children, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination decreases inflammatory cytokine responses," the authors wrote.

(Related:Studies showthatthe spike proteins in COVID jabs embed themselves in brain tissue, triggering long-term brain damage.the spike proteins in COVID jabs embed themselves in brain tissue, triggering long-term brain damage.)

Is gaining fake protection against COVID from mRNA shots really worth destroying your entire immune system?
Fortunately for kids, the immune response to bacteria does eventually return to normal. For viruses, though, the researchers observed that broken immunity lasts for at least six months, this being the total duration of their study period.

Had the study gone beyond just six months, chances are the researchers would have discovered that the children's weakened immunity to viruses lasts much longer – perhaps permanently.

Cytokines, by the way, are critical to proper immune function. Interferon, which is just one example of an immune system cytokine, helps the body to attack and neutralize viruses and other foreign invaders.

A widely cited paper published in the journal Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology states right in the first line of its abstract that:

"Interferons (IFNs) are a broad class of cytokines elicited on challenge to the host defense and are essential for mobilizing immune responses to pathogens."

Concerning the Frontiers in Immunology study, it was admittedly small, including just 29 children aged 6-11 at the first post-jab checkpoint, and just eight children at the six-month sample period.

"Further, the study's short size and tiny number of participants meant the researchers could not correlate real-world clinical outcomes – such as increased severity of infections – with the diminished immune responses," notes Alex Berenson on his Substack.

Like with other studies on this subject, the authors were also very careful to tiptoe around their findings, pretending as though they do not have any real implications concerning the safety or effectiveness of Fauci Flu shots.

As usual, the conclusion of the paper was vaguely non-definitive, stating that "further research and consideration" is needed "given their broad public health implications."

In other words, it would be too politically incorrect to suggest that COVID jabs are in any way dangerous, especially for children, so the authors made sure not to make such a suggestion – but outside doctors and physicians were much more forthcoming about what they read from the paper.

"My read on this paper is that it [mRNA vaccination] may in fact cause not just a short-term vulnerability to bacterial and viral infection in children, but it might cause a long-term immune deficiency," one physician said, adding that he is worried public health officials will simply ignore the findings like they usually do.

"Just see how the authors sidestep their own findings. The authors won't even bluntly state that it appears that the mRNA shot caused a persistent immune deficiency in children. Their conclusion is it 'alters' the cytokine response. This is the amount of courage in medicine."

COVID jabs kill. Learn more at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:

FrontiersIn.org

AlexBerenson.substack.com

NaturalNews.com

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The approved three-dose schedule of Pfizer Covid jabs for children under 5 did not reduce Covid-related medical visits in those kids, scientists reported Friday.

Covid jab advocates claim the shots help people avoid serious illness from Covid, though they offer brief protection - at best - against infection. But the new study suggested that the shots fail on that front too, and offer only risk and no benefit at all, at least in young kids.

Pfizer itself paid for the study, published as a “research letter” in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The researchers, including one from Pfizer, tried to obscure the finding of failure for the standard regimen.

In the paper, they combined it with the results of an unapproved two-dose regimen that showed a modest benefit. They then reported the overall results for “at least two” doses.

That presentation is scientifically bizarre.

Pfizer, the Food and Drug Administration, and CDC all say a three-dose regimen is standard for young kids. That’s the dosing schedule Pfizer tested in its clinical trial.

If researchers chose to report results from kids who have received a partial vaccination in the vaccinated category, why did they not also include those who have received a single dose?
Instead, they failed to report the one-dose results at all.

Further, reporting two shots are protective while three are not lacks any biological plausibility. If the vaccine works, three doses should produce a stronger immune response than two.

In fact, Pfizer added a third dose to the standard regimen for young kids because it feared two shots were not working well enough. (The shots for young children contain less mRNA, the active ingredient that produces an immune response, than those for adults.)

But combining two shots with three did help the researchers in one way - it allowed them to relegate the failure of the approved dosing schedule to a single line in the paper.
—
This chart looks more complicated than it is.
See the blue dots? Those are the ones that matter.

Those are the ones that represents the risk to kids who took the shots the way Pfizer and the Centers for Disease Control recommended. See how all three blue dots are basically stuck at the 1.0 horizontal line?

Now see how the top end of the brackets around the blue dots are above the line? Those brackets are the “confidence intervals.” If they’re above 1, no one can say whether the shots help, do nothing, or hurt - at least based on this study. And they are WELL above 1.

The study’s finding comes only days after the Centers for Disease Control again began pushing Covid mRNA jabs on kids, a recommendation few other countries make.

Since regulators authorized the shots for young kids last year, most parents have rejected them. Only about 2 million kids, or 10 percent of American children under five, have received even one mRNA jab, according to the CDC. Of those, barely half have completed their three-shot primary series.

From the beginning, the effort to approve and promote the mRNAs in young children has been troubled.

In December 2021, after Pfizer had started the big clinical trial needed to approve the shots for young kids, the company added a third dose to the dosing schedule. That change violated basic rules of clinical trial design, which say the drug regimen has to be “pre-specified” before the trial starts or results are collected.

But the Food and Drug Administration allowed the trial change. Then, in June 2022, it authorized the Pfizer vaccine for those kids “as a primary series of three doses.” The CDC agrees the three-dose regimen is the standard.
The FDA authorization set off a massive government campaign, eagerly abetted by the elite media and the primary lobbying group for pediatricians, to push the shots.

But within weeks, it was clear that parents had overwhelmingly rejected the jabs, even in blue states. Vaccine advocates then said they expected young children to receive the shots at standard well-child pediatric visits in fall 2022, but uptake remained dismal.

Still, the CDC has not stopped pushing the shots on young kids. It did so again last week, recommending all children six months and older, as well as all adults, get a Covid booster this fall. On its Website, the CDC claims the shots are safe and “prevent children from getting seriously sick if they do get COVID-19.”

That the theory the new study was designed to examine, using a model called test-negative design.

The researchers checked the records of 177,000 emergency department, urgent care, and outpatient medical visits in Southern California for young kids with respiratory infections from July 2022 through May 2023. The visits included 24,000 in which Covid tests were given, with 2,300 positive findings.

In other words, Covid accounted for barely 1 percent of all 177,000 visits for respiratory infections. No surprise, as Covid is generally very mild in young kids.

But within the group of kids who were tested and found to have Covid, kids who had received three mRNA shots were just as likely to have Covid as a cause of their visit as those who had none.

So three shots did nothing to keep young kids from needing medical attention for Covid.

What will it take for the CDC to admit defeat?


Source(and links to other sources found in article here):

https://open.substack.com/pub/alexbe..._campaign=post

Lower hospitalization rates tho.

The researchers checked the records of 177,000 emergency department, urgent care, and outpatient medical visits in Southern California for young kids with respiratory infections from July 2022 through May 2023. The visits included 24,000 in which Covid tests were given, with 2,300 positive findings.

In other words, Covid accounted for barely 1 percent of all 177,000 visits for respiratory infections. No surprise, as Covid is generally very mild in young kids.

But within the group of kids who were tested and found to have Covid, kids who had received three mRNA shots were just as likely to have Covid as a cause of their visit as those who had none.

So three shots did nothing to keep young kids from needing medical attention for Covid.

That's not what the paper reported

Link in OP

Great news indeed! Let us celebrate!

Need an account to view yours and you didn’t even copy/paste the full thing(assuming you’ve even seen it). Meanwhile you can access links to all the claims made in the article that I shared. Boosters are trash, which lots of people already realize.

Interesting team

Institutional access works.

Weird to respond with a Berenson take on a different paper.

A paper that indicates the claims you shared are bullsh!t, as evidenced by the numbers.

Interesting how OP has a tendacy to leave out certain information.......