California’s governor Gavin Newsome has not been seen in public since being injected with Moderna’s COVID booster shot on October 27th. Why? Why did he cancel a trip to the “climate change” gathering of the planet’s elite? This twice a decade event was a great opportunity for Newsome to hobnob with the woke elite of the world.
There has been much speculation that Newsome had some kind of adverse reaction to the shot. JD Rucker reports:
This weekend, I received information from a source with knowledge of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s health condition. He reportedly developed symptoms of Bell’s Palsy immediately after getting injected with the Moderna Covid-19 booster shot and has had trouble speaking coherently. We have sought another source to corroborate before reporting but were unable to get that confirmation until two more reports surfaced today.
All circumstantial evidence points to some kind of reaction to the booster shot that has made public appearances by Newsome impossible. Nobody has seen him in public in two weeks. This is highly unusual for Newsome. Partial facial paralysis and difficulty speaking are consistent with a diagnosis of Bell’s Palsy or Guillan-Barre syndrome (GBS).
Whatever the narrative is that Newsome eventually puts out ( I hear that Halloween is the excuse of choice), the real issue here is just how often does GBS or Bell’s Palsy show up with these vaccines? They are a very rare occurrence with normal vaccines.
Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88) recently did a VAERS analysis looking at symptoms which are elevated by the COVID vaccine versus a 5-year baseline rate (VAERS reports from 2015-2019).
Look at what is 10th on the list (line 11). Please note that a person is 1,533 times more likely to get Bell’s palsy after the COVID vaccines than from any previous vaccine.
And Newsome is advocating jabbing 5-11 year-olds. Keep in mind that Bell’s Palsy and GBS are just two of over 5,000 adverse events that are elevated with these vaccines. Some school districts in Newsome’s state have made the jab mandatory for school attendance.
This leads to an important question. What is the risk/benefit analysis for kids? Specifically what is the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one death in a child 5-11?
The CDC’s “Guidance for Health Economics Studies Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2019 Update” describes 21 things that every health economics study in connection with vaccines must do. The FDA risk-benefit analysis violated at least half of them. The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) is an important item in the CDC’s list. It is not to be found in the FDA analysis.
Tony Rogers, an expert in this area, notes:
Background:
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, is a standard way to measure the effectiveness of any drug. It’s an important tool because it enables policymakers to evaluate tradeoffs between a new drug, a different existing drug, or doing nothing. In vaccine research the equivalent term is Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV, sometimes also written as NNV) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death (those are 4 different NNTVs that one could calculate).
So, what are the NNTV’s for these vaccines? The FDA may know. Pfizer may know. But none of them are saying anything for public consumption.
Rogers went on to report:
Various health economists have calculated a NNTV for COVID-19 vaccines.
-
Ronald Brown, a health economist in Canada, estimated that the NNTV to prevent a single case of coronavirus is from 88 to 142.
-
Others have calculated the NNTV to prevent a single case at 256.
-
German and Dutch researchers, using a large (500k) data set from a field study in Israel calculated an NNTV between 200 and 700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA shot marketed by Pfizer. They went further and figured out that the “NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate.”
Keep in mind that most people, especially children, recover quickly on their own. There would be even more quick recoveries if the powers that be would get out of the way and allow effective treatments (think Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine) to be used early in the progress of the illness.
Rogers went on:
Children ages 5 to 11 are at extremely low risk of death from coronavirus. In a meta-analysis combining data from 5 studies, Stanford researchers Cathrine Axfors and John Ioannidis found a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.0027% in children ages 0-19. In children ages 5 to 11 the IFR is even lower. Depending on the study one looks at, COVID-19 is slightly less dangerous or roughly equivalent to the flu in children.
This is saying that there are less than 3 deaths among 100,000 children ages 0-19 with COVID. This is covers children of all health situations including those with compromised immune systems.
Rogers defined both a benefits model and a risk model.
On the benefits side:
-
As of October 30, 2021, the CDC stated that 170 children ages 5 to 11 have died of COVID-19-related illness since the start of the pandemic. (That represents less than 0.1% of all coronavirus-related deaths nationwide even though children that age make up 8.7% of the U.S. population).
-
The Pfizer mRNA shot only “works” for about 6 months (it increases risk in the first month, provides moderate protection in months 2 through 4 and then effectiveness begins to wane, which is why all of the FDA modeling only used a 6 month time-frame). So any modeling would have to be based on vaccine effectiveness in connection with the 57 (170/3) children who might otherwise have died of COVID-related illness during a 6-month period.
-
At best, the Pfizer mRNA shot might be 80% effective against hospitalizations and death. That number comes directly from the FDA modeling (p. 32). I am bending over backwards to give Pfizer the benefit of considerable doubt because again, the Pfizer clinical trial showed NO reduction in hospitalizations or death in this age group. So injecting all 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 with two doses of Pfizer (which is what the Biden administration wants to do) would save, at most, 45 lives (0.8 effectiveness x 57 fatalities that otherwise would have occurred during that time period = 45).
-
So then the NNTV to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45). But it’s a two dose regimen so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550. It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.
Please note the significance of bullet point #3. Pfizer’s own clinical trial showed zero benefit for this age group (5-11). By Pfizer’s own admission, there were zero hospitalizations, ICU admissions or deaths, in the treatment or control group in their study of 2,300 children ages 5 to 11. So just how effective could vaccinating kids 5 to 11 be? What is the purpose of subjecting these kids to the potential side effects of which there are a considerable number?
Death is one of the serious side effects from these “vaccines.” How many deaths would occur from the “vaccine?” How does this compare to the “lives saved?”
Rogers builds a risk model.
-
Because the Pfizer clinical trial has no useable data, I have to immuno-bridge from the nearest age group.
-
31,761,099 people (so just about 10% more people than in the 5 to 11 age bracket) ages 12 to 24 have gotten at least one coronavirus shot.
-
The COVID-19 vaccine program has only existed for 10 months and younger people have only had access more recently (children 12 to 15 have had access for five months; since May 10) — so we’re looking at roughly the same observational time period as modeled above.
-
During that time, there are 128 reports of fatal side effects following coronavirus mRNA injections in people 12 to 24. (That’s through October 22, 2021. There is a reporting lag though so the actual number of reports that have been filed is surely higher).
-
Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford (2021) estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41 which would put the total fatal side effects in this age-range at 5,248. (Kirsch et al. represents a conservative estimate because others have put the underreporting factor at 100.)
-
With potentially deadly side effects including myo- and pericarditis disproportionately impacting youth it is reasonable to think that over time the rate of fatal side effects from mRNA shots in children ages 5 to 11 might be similar to those in ages 12 to 24.
I believe that Rogers is probably underestimating the negative heart effects among the 5-11 age group. The heart inflammation risks have risen as the age of those vaccinated has decreased with most of the increase seen among males. Of course, there is no way to determine just what the effect among the 5-11 age group will be.
Why would any rational person think that it would be a good idea to inject the mRNA poison into the bodies of 5-to-11-year-olds? The Pfizer mRNA shot fails any honest risk-benefit analysis in children ages 5 to 11. One can decide for one’s self if there is any reason for a healthy person to get vaccinated.
Let’s take this one more step. What do we know are the facts about the so-called vaccines?
- The injection does not confer antibody immunity to the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2). This is well known now with the breakthrough cases. The CDC went so far as to change the definition of vaccine to keep the mRNA therapy within the definition.
- The jab does not reduce hospitalizations or deaths. Even the sainted Dr. Fauci is sounding the alarm about the weakness of the therapy.
- The jab does not reduce the occurrence of severe symptoms.
- The jab does not stop the transmission from one person to another. While there are varying viral loads from one person to the next, such variance does not correspond to whether one has been jabbed or not.
Again, why would anyone be pushing to have our children suffer from this poison? Let’s add this data item to the discussion.
A recent large-scale study out of the UK has confirmed once again that children and young people have effectively ZERO risk of death after contracting Covid-19. The massive study determined that there was a microscopic 2/1,000,000 mortality rate (99.9998% recovery) for people under 25.
It is time to hold accountable all those people who have had a hand in perpetrating this nonsense on the public and putting people’s lives at risk. Criminal charges are the only deterrent to this type of conduct.