Those who maintain an honest and detached approach to reality now know very well that giving the Covid vaccine to children (and young people in general) makes no medical or health sense. Sweden is one of the few states that has said it openly: there is no benefit from vaccinating children against COVID-19. But Sweden has certainly not reinvented the wheel. It just had the political courage to speak openly.
Anyone who keeps up to date on the pandemic and the pseudo-vaccines from official and reliable sources knows that young people have practically no risk from COVID-19; but, on the contrary, run many known and unknown risks from the use of these products that until 2021 were not even definable as “vaccines.” Calling them “vaccines” was another major fraud of this sad period in human history.
The well-known Report 9, which in 2020 gave governments around the world the first reliable international data on the pandemic, said that children aged 0-9 had a 0.1% chance of hospitalization and 0.002% mortality; the 10-19 range, respectively, 0.3% and 0.006%; the 20-29 range, 0.1% and 0.03%. But even the older groups, up to at least 60 years were certainly not at high risk. In the 40-49 range, for example, the hospitalization rate was 4.9% while the mortality was 0.15%. Report 9 is easily available on the internet and, for those wishing to learn more, I also talk about it in my books on the ethics of anti-COVID vaccines (also easily available online).
The studies on minors used for the authorization of COVID vaccines are not significant because above all of the very small number of subjects involved (from two thousand to three thousand in the various studies, with half in the vaccine group and half in the placebo group). These numbers (a thousand vaccinated children)—combined with the insignificant ratio of serious effects of the disease in the age groups involved—obviously cannot give any sensible statistical meaning for the efficacy and benefits of the vaccine. These trial data are also readily available from government agency websites and scientific literature. The authorizations of experimental anti-COVID products for young people are a mathematical fraud against informed consent. This too is an evident fact to anyone who can read reality honestly and detachedly.
The utilitarian argument is that young people must be vaccinated to protect the elderly from contagion. Even for those who profess the utilitarian ethical faith, however, this argument does not hold up in light of the fact that there is no scientific evidence relating to an alleged efficacy of the pseudo-vaccines on the circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is not interpretative data nor dependent on the latest scientific investigations but data that has always been visible in this way even in the FAQs of the major world agencies, from FDA to EMA.
For example, here is the answer in the FDA FAQ on Pfizer vaccine: “Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Comirnaty [the supposed commercial name of Pfizer’s vaccine] will reduce such transmission.”
And this is what the European Medicines Agency (EMA) writes regarding the Pfizer vaccine and regarding all other vaccines currently approved in Europe: “The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty [Nuvaxovid, Spikevax (Moderna), Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), Janssen] on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.”
So why the fanatical insistence by many governments around the world on the importance and urgency of vaccinating children? On the part of the cynical pharmaceutical companies, of course, there is the god of money to rule over the game of motivations. But what is the excuse of governments? From my point of view, ignorance and incompetence were among the possibilities until recently. But now the exchange of information and the opposition by serious experts have become too intense. I no longer believe that governments are simply ignorant and incompetent. The explanation must lie in bad faith. Even bad faith, however, requires reasons. So, what motivations can governments have for promoting a vaccination campaign that is totally useless and harmful to children?
A somewhat fanciful first answer is that, to hide one’s past responsibilities, it is good to erase the traces, as any self-respecting criminal knows well. As long as there are large unvaccinated population groups it will be possible and easy in the future to make statistically adequate comparisons between who received the vaccine and who did not. If all or virtually all have been vaccinated, the traces of the crime will be erased. I believe that this motivation, albeit a little fanciful, is fully part of the possible explanations of political fanaticism about vaccines for children. Indeed, the most striking fantasy is that of criminals worried about getting caught. They are the best conspiracy theorists, the ones who ponder spasmodically on any possible clue to their crime. The political and legal responsibilities in the management of the pandemic, in the elimination of the safety protocols of new drugs, in the falsification or manipulation of public information and in the corresponding violation of informed consent could be immense and involve genocide and various crimes against humanity.
There is another motivation, however, simpler and more mathematical. Vaccine fanatic governments absolutely must prove to the world that vaccines have been effective in fighting the epidemic and the more serious effects of COVID-19. How do you mathematically increase the effectiveness of vaccines? Simple, by vaccinating all those people who risk nothing or almost nothing from COVID-19. I recently read a good article that exemplified this reasoning in a mathematical way. I summarize it here in a purely logical way, to understand it better.
If in a population vaccinated “V” there are a certain number of deaths or intensive care hospitalizations from COVID equal to “D/ICU” which equals a percentage “P,” and we double the number of vaccinated “V” with people who do not increase the mortality and intensive care value “D/ICU,” we obtain (even if the number of deaths or ICUs does not vary) a percentage of deaths and intensive care “P” that is halved. At the same time, we obtain the opposite effect in the unvaccinated population, which now have double the percentage of deaths or ICUs even if the real or absolute number of deaths and ICUs has remains unchanged.
It is important to understand that for this mathematical fraud to work, it is necessary to vaccinate precisely those subjects who have no real benefit from the vaccine. The goal is in fact to attract the positive effects of the natural immune system to the group of vaccinated subjects so that these effects can be mathematically attributed to the vaccine and not to nature. For the purposes of this fraud, getting adults and seniors vaccinated is less important.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that this mathematical fraud is the primary reason for the Jacobin fanaticism of many governments around the world who know they have done many, too many things wrong. It is not strange, from this point of view, that governments that have not accepted this demonic game on children’s health are the very ones that have the least “fanatical” faults to hide in regards to the pandemic and vaccines, such as England and Sweden. This mathematical fraud also explains why a government like the Italian one, which has probed new and unexplored horizons in human negligence, ignorance, and immorality, is the most fanatical of all in pushing for the vaccination of its children without caring about their health and the possibility of their death. I can’t imagine anything more evil and immoral than risking the death of children to hide one’s sins.
God help them!
Fulvio Di Blasi is the author most recently of The Death of the Phronimos: Faith and Truth about anti-Covid Vaccines and Vaccination as an Act of Love? Epistemology of Ethical Choice in Times of Pandemics. He is a practicing lawyer who holds a Ph.D. in the philosophy of law. He is an expert especially in Aristotelian Thomist thought and natural law theory.
Featured image: “Brighter Future,” by Jordan Henderson.