Misinformation rampant when it comes to COVID-19 shots for young children

We have agencies and media that have been captured by big pharma. They have consistently pushed the big pharma narrative while censoring and attacking any dissenting views from top experts. Fortunately, some important information has managed to be exposed through FOIA and court orders. More people are learning the truth about these "vaccines" despite the constant false accusations of spreading misinformation.

In January 2021, the CDC announced that it would regularly mine their VAERS data for safety signals and calculate proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). But in a recent response to a FOIA request, the CDC admitted they did not do any study study. Yet people continue to dismiss all the adverse effects as comparable to other vaccines, despite the data clearly showing they are off the charts and much more dangerous than any previous vaccines. No agency is seriously looking for adverse effects.

Two scientists disagreeing with each other on the long-term safety and efficacy of vaccines for children - or adults - isn't misinformation, it's called science.

If anything should be classified as misinformation, it's the lies from the big pharmaceutical companies, which are so far past ludicrous, it's almost criminal.

There a difference between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is not intentional, and something that is classed as misinformation today may be reassessed as correct tomorrow as new information comes to light.

Disinformation, however, is deliberately designed to deceive. And disinformation has been rolled out consistently by governments, big pharma, and their media attack dogs and industry shills (such as the people who wrote this article), to gaslight, provide false information or cover up embarrassing facts about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the vaccines produced to protect against it, smear anyone - especially suitably qualified experts - who dares to challenge the official narrative, masks, and muddy the waters about true risks regarding age stratification and comorbidities ranging from the elderly through to children.

Myocarditis and other cardiac problems are much more frequent, serious and dangerous after the natural infection than with any of the vaccines approved for use in children.

Top cardiologists (Peter McCullough and others) have actually reported the opposite about vaccine-induced myocarditis.

The reality is that people with deep anti-scientific bias will never accept they could be wrong...

Do you mean people with deep conflicts of interest, who would profit tremendously from the product they are defending?

Your link is from an organization funded heavily by the Gates foundation, which is in turn funded by an individual who benefits personally through his investments in the very companies that stand to profiteer from vaccinating anything that moves.

Yes, already in early 2019, he said he got a 20:1 return on his investments. I wonder what level he has achieved since then.

Anyone who talks publicly about health issues should mention their conflicts of interest each time they talk. There are too many unethical activities surrounding the Covid19 response....

StrangerlandToday  03:12 pm JST

We've already seen loads of adverse effects with the covid vaccines on people of all ages, including kids, most commonly myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots that cause strokes, paralysis, limb loss and heart failure as short-term effects.

But you said we don't know the long term effects. But you've not given any reason to think there would be any, when there not being any is not only the norm, but actually the only thing we've even seen up until now.

Facepalm!

Of course we don't know the long-term effects, which is why an open and honest system must be in place to check for them. Instead there are concerted efforts to downplay the risks and ignore or dismiss people reporting adverse effects from the covid vaccines. This is entirely the wrong way to handle the situation, and smacks of conflicts of interest from people and organizations that benefit from suppressing this information.

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, we are dealing with complex systems, so the default setting must be that a product can't be concluded as safe until proven otherwise. You're essentially arguing that because not everyone gets adverse effects, then the product is safe and will be in the future. Given that the spike proteins have been found circulating in the body and in various tissues months after injection, how can you know how they will interact with the body over the long term?

StrangerlandToday  02:02 pm JST

Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines.

Have you got any examples of vaccines that had bad effects that appeared later?

I heard a doctor say earlier on in the pandemic that they had never seen adverse reactions from vaccines more than I believe 6 months away. It's been over a year since I got my first two doses.

We've already seen loads of adverse effects with the covid vaccines on people of all ages, including kids, most commonly myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots that cause strokes, paralysis, limb loss and heart failure as short-term effects.

And because these shots are very different to what have been used before, their long-term effects simply can't be known until time ticks over. Surely you can grasp that? The docs released so far about the Pfizer vaccine during the initial trial show a long list of adverse effects, many mild but many severe. Docs that Pfizer and their lackeys in the FDA tried to keep from public view - even though governments were effectively forcing people to take an experimental therapy of dubious safety and efficacy under threat of losing their livelihoods. No conflict of interest there at all... They are basically using the public, old and young, as guinea pigs and trying to remove the control group to make it hard to point the finger at these vaccines as the cause of these.

And when deaths from adverse effects become too numerous for the media and the bought-off medical establishment to ignore, they've dredged up the hitherto rarely used acronym Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS) as a convenient box to place cases in so they can ignore concerning signs about covid vaccine safety.

When there's an absolutely miniscule risk to children from the virus, trying to coerce parents into giving kids the jab is both highly unethical and potentially debilitating or even lethal.

You might not have had any adverse effects, but you can only speak for yourself. If nothing happens, great. It's interesting though that those who tend to bleat the loudest when it comes to my body, my choice for abortion are quick to change their tune when it comes to the experimental covid vaccines.

Aly RustomToday  09:54 am JST

my 6 year old is vaccinated 

i want my 4 year old to be too

Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines. If some severe adverse effects harm your children, what will you do then? These aren't your regular vaccines, the safety records of which are already well established. Don't you see any conflicts of interest relating to the covid vaccines?

Of course I can't make your decision for you. But I won't be letting the covid vaccines anywhere near my child.

Misinformation rampant when it comes to COVID-19.

Period (as my US friends say).

Misinformation we have seen here in many past comments.

Even before Omicron, plenty of experts were saying that for healthy kids, the risks of adverse effects were greater than any potential benefits. Since Omicron, it makes even less sense to vaccinate healthy kids.

But if a parent still wants to get their kids vaccinated, they should perhaps check to see if their child is already immune. A UK study found that almost all secondary students and over 80% primary students had SARSCoV2 antibodies. I don't know what the rates are elsewhere, but if a kid already has antibodies it makes zero sense to unnecessarily risk their health with these "vaccines".

There is no problem with generalizing the information from several sources, the only other option would be to generalize from one single source wich obviously is worse. Experts on each country can access the global resources used by the recommendations of the WHO and adapt the recommendations to their particular situation, that is nothing unexpected or unknown.

The problem is the countries that instead of relying on the actual scientific data provided by experts, an agency like the WHO tries to politicize the information, thereby telling one country to take one approach, and telling another country to take a different approach.

It is not too difficult why people might be confused as to what is the best approach, which is why the US, for example, relies on its global health authorities for information related to healthcare as opposed to an agency, whose main function is acting as a UN agency to direct healthcare efforts in third world countries.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that this recommendation was completely coherent with the scientific evidence that was available at the time, and that other scientific and medical institutions like the CDC also said the same. Sorry if it seems too difficult to understand but science completely depends on evidece to move.

The only explanation I read was an opinion by a non-medical profession who tries to cling to the notion that when an agency like the WHO makes a mistake, it is acceptable because, well, it is the WHO. Such blind faith by laymen is interesting because instead of reading the actual scientific data, they rely on a homogenized version, which they accept as gospel. While medical professionals, as in the case when the Covid crisis began, take an analytical approach and see what make most logical sense; so we saw the CDC advising to use masks in contrast to the WHO's advice that the general public not wear masks--which was incredible because the WHO forgot its own lessons learned from the SARS crisis.

Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines.

Have you got any examples of vaccines that had bad effects that appeared later?

I heard a doctor say earlier on in the pandemic that they had never seen adverse reactions from vaccines more than I believe 6 months away. It's been over a year since I got my first two doses.

We've already seen loads of adverse effects with the covid vaccines on people of all ages, including kids, most commonly myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots that cause strokes, paralysis, limb loss and heart failure as short-term effects.

But you said we don't know the long term effects. But you've not given any reason to think there would be any, when there not being any is not only the norm, but actually the only thing we've even seen up until now.

Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines

That is not an argument because even without knowing the long term effects the infection is already correlated with higher dangers than any of the vaccines that can be used to prevent it, which means it is still well justified to do it. Present evidence covid will not have any more of the dozens of problems already found it causes and only then you will can argue the vaccines are at a disadvantage.

This is not a disease affecting people for centuries, pretending nothing else will be found related to covid, but will be found for vaccines is deeply irrational.

We've already seen loads of adverse effects with the covid vaccines on people of all ages, including kids, most commonly myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots that cause strokes, paralysis, limb loss and heart failure as short-term effects.

And we already seen that these adverse effects are milder, much less frequent and much less dangerous than the problems related with the infection, which still means vaccinating actually helps reducing the risk of presenting them.

Again, present evidence the many long term and even permanent effects of covid are false, else you don't have any argument, the vaccines are the better, safer option now, and seeing how almost every week covid is found related with more problems this is a trend that can be extended to the future.

I've had 3 shots -Over the course of a year. Zero long term effects.

Me too. I didn't even have short term effects. And at one point, I was in close proximity to a few people who had covid, and I never tested positive. I think neither the vaccine nor covid are particularly bad if you are in good health. If you're not in good health, then the vaccine may make you feel rough, but not as bad as covid will likely be on you.

Thing is, most people who are anti-vaxx, are visibly not the healthiest of folk. Yet, they're the ones most likely to be hit hardest with covid. They use arguments about how if you're healthy, you have nothing to worry about. As one of the healthy people, I say you also have nothing to worry about with the vax. It's a needle, no need to be a snowflake. Unless you're unhealthy...

Summary: Be healthy, and also get vaxxed. Then you don't have to worry and life is fun.

It is fine to recommend vaccines however it is not fine to force people to get vaccinated.

I don't remember reading of forced vaccinations anywhere.

I read of people losing privileges for not getting vaccinated. That's entirely fine. They were prolonging the whole pandemic, losers.

About 40% also said that information from federal health agencies, such as the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, about vaccines for this age group was confusing.

When actual global health authorities like the CDC are providing confusing information, this is a big problem.

In addition, we have health agencies like the WHO that provide information provided by different health experts around the world, and that try and generalize the approach to healthcare so that depending what country you are from, the information might not be in one's best Interests. And it goes without saying that it provided scientifically incorrect information at times. Lik telling people masks aren't necessary.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

..and the vaccines no longer experimental.

Spot on #Strangerland - I've never read of anywhere or of anyone having vaccination forced upon them, Period. Sure - there was loss of social privileges and travel difficulties in the early days, most of which are now removed because the majority of us did the sensible thing. Many of these restrictions would have disappeared sooner had the anti-vaxxers not been such old woman. I note recently, that their defence is becoming more reliant on early anti--vax arguments and becoming cyclical and convoluted.

Nobody knows the long-term effects of these vaccines.

But we do know that there are long term effects of getting COVID, especially for those who are unvaxxed .

If some severe adverse effects harm your children, what will you do then? These aren't your regular vaccines, the safety records of which are already well established. Don't you see any conflicts of interest relating to the covid vaccines?

I do not. But since MANY people I know have had COVID AND nearly died (including children of acquaintances) I feel that the risk of adverse effects which may or may not exist are less of a concern to me than my kids getting COVID while unvaccinated.

Of course I can't make your decision for you. But I won't be letting the covid vaccines anywhere near my child.

To each his own.

Even before Omicron, plenty of experts were saying that for healthy kids, the risks of adverse effects were greater than any potential benefits.

Talking is cheap, the good thing is that nobody has evidence that actually indicates this is the case. The available evidence clearly points out to the infection being much more risky for children than the vaccine.

But if a parent still wants to get their kids vaccinated, they should perhaps check to see if their child is already immune

Why for? the vaccines still benefit people that have been infected before, it would not make a difference if a child has or not immunity, vaccinating him still means less risk.

Of course we don't know the long-term effects, which is why an open and honest system must be in place to check for them. Instead there are concerted efforts to downplay the risks and ignore or dismiss people reporting adverse effects from the covid vaccines. 

No, that is false, what is being justifiably being attacked are people that knowlingly misrepresent the very inclusive system in place to report anything happening even if there is no chance for it to be actually related to the vaccines.

The other problem is people that are unable to accept there is no higher risks from the vaccines than from the infection, so in their circular logic any system must be wrong if it does not discover these supposed dangers.

When it comes to pharmaceuticals, we are dealing with complex systems, so the default setting must be that a product can't be concluded as safe until proven otherwise

That is nonsense, the default setting is to demonstrate using something is safer than not using it. What is the point of letting literally millions of people die just so this arbitrary standard of safety was met? As long as it can be proved that vaccinating is less risky for people than letting them get infected then it is justified to do it.

Given that the spike proteins have been found circulating in the body and in various tissues months after injection, how can you know how they will interact with the body over the long term?

A reference for this because that is not being reported. The spike protein is expressed much more, for longer times, and in a much less controlled way during the natural infection. Which would mean that vaccinating actually protect people from the worst of this supposed toxicity by letting the body get immunity against a tiny fraction of it instead of the huge amount that circulates for who knows how long during the infection.

BigYenToday  09:49 am JST

Since anti-vaccination misinformation has been rampant about Covid shots ever since Covid shots became a reality, it's no surprise that misinformation should be ongoing now that they're available for children. It's no less than a crusade for those determined to bring down universal treatments for Covid, possesses the same anti-logical religious fervour that characterised crusades in the 11th to the 13th centuries, and has just about the same degree of scientific and medical knowledge enjoyed by people in those medieval times when superstition and ignorance ruled.

And all these anyivaxxer liars have BLOOD on their hands.

Good on you @Aly Rustom. Can't say much more or my post will be removed.

. It's interesting though that those who tend to bleat the loudest when it comes to my body, my choice for abortion are quick to change their tune when it comes to the experimental covid vaccines.

@vaxatharian - I think you are misreading posts here then. Most pro-choice posting on this website are also pro-vax. Seems to be pretty drawn along religious lines to me than anything to do with science.

I've had 3 shots -Over the course of a year. Zero long term effects. None in my company either where 99% have had it.

Good on you @Aly Rustom. Can't say much more or my post will be removed.

thanks bro! I know what you mean. Must be the heat getting to some people...

The problem is the countries that instead of relying on the actual scientific data provided by experts, an agency like the WHO tries to politicize the information, thereby telling one country to take one approach, and telling another country to take a different approach.

Which recomendations and conclusions have not been coherent with the available data at the time? you have only criticized the WHO on things that every other scientific authority also said, and that would have required information from the future to be corrected. That is not politizing anything that is just acting the same as every other scientific authority must do, according to the evidence.

It is not too difficult why people might be confused as to what is the best approach, which is why the US, for example, relies on its global health authorities for information related to healthcare as opposed to an agency, whose main function is acting as a UN agency to direct healthcare efforts in third world countries

Making up imaginary "main functions" is not an argument, the US do not have global health authorites, they have national ones, that respond to national interests first, not global ones. Also you contradict yourself when making an argument of how the US should only listen to their local scientific authorities, not only because that is what got them confused, but also because there conclusions remains the same.

The only explanation I read was an opinion by a non-medical profession who tries to cling to the notion that when an agency like the WHO makes a mistake

The sources that prove that are not "non-medical professions" and once again you can't use your guesses about what other people are or not as arguments. Specially when the explanations are not even based on any personal appeal but instead on clear sources that said the CDC did exactly the same as the WHO and recommended masks to be prioritizedfor health care professionals.

Disinformation, however, is deliberately designed to deceive. And disinformation has been rolled out consistently by governments, big pharma, and their media attack dogs and industry shills (such as the people who wrote this article), to gaslight, provide false information or cover up embarrassing facts about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the vaccines produced to protect against it, smear anyone - especially suitably qualified experts - who dares to challenge the official narrative, masks, and muddy the waters about true risks regarding age stratification and comorbidities ranging from the elderly through to children

Since you provide exactly zero evidence of this being the case, the disinformation would be then the baseless accusation.

There is no believable way every institution of the planet is on a conspiracy to hide supposedly unsafe vaccines to be used in the familiy and friends of the people clearly saying they are safe. Much less for money.

The reality is that people with deep anti-scientific bias will never accept they could be wrong and the scientific consensus right, so the only option they find is to blame a world wide conspiracy of which they have zero proof.

Why anyone would vaccinate their children when the known risks of the virus are very minimal, practically zero, versus the known risks of the vaccine, which are not insignificant (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5) and the as yet unknown risks is beyond me...

This is part of the disinformation that is being endlessly repeated here. Myocarditis and other cardiac problems are much more frequent, serious and dangerous after the natural infection than with any of the vaccines approved for use in children. That means the opposite of what you write is true, vaccines have minimal risks compared with the much more dangerous option of remaining unvaccinated.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-you-need-know-about-covid-19-vaccines-and-myocarditis-teens

The CDC researchers estimated there might be a maximum of 70 cases of myocarditis out of a million second doses given to boys ages 12 to 17, but that the vaccine would prevent 5,700 infections, 215 hospitalisations and two deaths.

It’s key to note that COVID-19 itself can cause heart problems in young people, and a small proportion who recover from the disease can be left with inflammation of the heart.

In addition, we have health agencies like the WHO that provide information provided by different health experts around the world, and that try and generalize the approach to healthcare so that depending what country you are from, the information might not be in one's best Interests.

There is no problem with generalizing the information from several sources, the only other option would be to generalize from one single source wich obviously is worse. Experts on each country can access the global resources used by the recommendations of the WHO and adapt the recommendations to their particular situation, that is nothing unexpected or unknown.

And it goes without saying that it provided scientifically incorrect information at times. Lik telling people masks aren't necessary.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that this recommendation was completely coherent with the scientific evidence that was available at the time, and that other scientific and medical institutions like the CDC also said the same. Sorry if it seems too difficult to understand but science completely depends on evidece to move.

What it can't be done is to understand it for you, but your conclusion is still false and will keep being so until you provide any scientific evidence for benefit of the use of masks by asymptomatic people on the street, something you have been repeatedly unable to do.

We have agencies and media that have been captured by big pharma

You have never provided evidence of this having any relevance to the information provided by them about covid. It is just an excuse that antivaxxer groups use when confronted with the fact that every recognized institution of science of medicine say they are wrong.

Censoring and attacking people that repeat false information that endanger the health and lives of the people is something desirable and correct. There is no value on repeating disinformation.

But in a recent response to a FOIA request, the CDC admitted they did not do any study study.

Anybody can do these kinds of studies, the information is there, the same as many other places all over the world where the safety and efficacy of vaccines have been proved above any rational doubt.

despite the data clearly showing they are off the charts and much more dangerous than any previous vaccines.

The data clearly proves the contrary, the only reason why more adverse effects have been reported is because much more people with preexisting conditions and old age have been vaccinated. Without any evidence indicating the problems are more likely to happen in vaccinated people when compared with unvaccinated populations of the same demographics it is clear that the vaccines are not causing those problems, if that were the case then the vaccines would alsos magically be causing them in unvaccinated people, which makes no sense.

No agency is seriously looking for adverse effects.

Yes, they are, but they are not finding them, which for most people is a very positive thing, not for antivaxxer groups of course that prefer for people to suffer and die as long as they can use that against vaccines.

Social media is not the only vehicle for disinformation and lies from antivaxxer groups. Even supposedly serious media outlets such as this can fail in their responsibility to inform the public when they let the comment section become full of false and misleading information.

In every article about vaccine for children you can find people endlessly repeating the same falsehoods. "Children don't have any risk from covid", "Vaccines are more risky for them", "Being vaccinated lower their immunity", "Doctors are in a conspiracy to damage children for money" etc. etc. This completely defeats the purpose of having a well researched and substantiated report congruent with the available scientific evidence and can have dire consequences on people that incorrectly assume those comments would not be allowed if they were false.

my 6 year old is vaccinated

i want my 4 year old to be too