COVID jabs could ‘potentially kill thousands’ of kids: former HHS epidemiologist

If Dr. Fauci of the NIAID, Dr. Walensky of the CDC, and Dr. Collins of the NIH do not want to remove liability protection, and if the vaccine developers do not offer to do this, then parents must take this as a cue that the injection is potentially dangerous.

Ontario (LifeSiteNews) – We can potentially kill thousands, if not more, of our children if we move forward with these ‘safety untested’ COVID-19 injections.

There is real potential risk, and we have never, ever formed any other project whereby we seek to inject into people a substance that has not even gone through the minimal safety level testing.

Why must I make this stark statement, and why would regulators such as the US’s FDA and Canada’s Health Canada be considering this action when they know that the requisite safety testing has not been done?

 

I am not against vaccines in themselves, for they have made a tremendous beneficial impact and play a key role in the well-being and longevity of human beings. However, I am against improperly developed vaccines. Those developed for COVID-19 have been sub-optimal, and the safety testing is lacking, particularly the requisite duration of safety testing follow-up. But, for this article, my focus is on our children.

The risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 in children is almost nil (statistical zero), and this evidence has accumulated for well over a year now; in fact, we have known this for over 15 months. It is clear that children are at low risk of spreading infection to other children, or spreading it to adults, as seen in household transmission studies, and this is settled scientific global evidence. This implies that any mass injection/inoculation or even clinical trials on children are unethical and potentially associated with significant harm.

Injection (vaccine) studies have failed to ‘exclude’ harms for our children or prove their necessity, and as such we do not know what will happen if children take the injection. The injections in children offer no opportunity for benefit and only opportunity for harms based on the risk-benefit calculation that dramatically skews risk towards harms.

We don’t inject our children just because an injection was developed and Dr. Fauci (NIAID), or Dr. Walensky (CDC), or Dr. Collins (NIH) says we must take it. They have been routinely wrong in their statements and positions on most matters relating to COVID-19. Moreover, they have failed to prove their case that these injections are needed by our children. Not only must the injection be proven safe, but its necessity must also be shown in terms of risk. Neither of these ‘musts’ have been met.

Children are at low risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19

The risk-benefit discussion for children with these COVID-19 injections is very different from that for adults. Furthermore, the accumulated evidence of adverse effects and deaths (in CDC’s VAERS database for vaccine injuries) temporally linked to the injection (requiring validation) with biological plausibility (Bradford Hill criteria for causality) remains a very serious cause for concern. The fact is that this is a completely novel and experimental injection therapy with no medium or long-term safety data, or even definitive effectiveness data.

I am very concerned that if we move forward with the vaccination of our children without the proper safety testing, then we will put them at a potentially catastrophic risk, including, for some, death. I make this claim based on what has transpired thus far in adults and young people who have been vaccinated.

Moreover, “[t]he estimated IFR is close to zero for children and young adults.” The global data is unequivocal that “deaths from COVID are incredibly rare” in children. While anyone is at risk of being infected, “there is more than a thousand-fold difference in the risk of death between the old and the young”. The CDC reported that children accounted for 0.05% of all COVID involved deaths since the beginning of the emergency in February/March 2020, it has not been declarative on whether these children died ‘with’ COVID or ‘of’ COVID.

The CDC has given no convincing information thus far to determine if children’s COVID deaths in the US since the inception of the pandemic in February 2020 were causal or incidental.  A July 2021 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins Hospital was entitled “The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children: The agency overcounts Covid hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient.”

Dr. Makary indicated that his team “worked with the non-profit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020.” After studying comprehensive data on thousands of children, the team “found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.” Makary says that, rather than acknowledge this scientific reality, the CDC continues to use “flimsy evidence” to push the COVID vaccine upon children. A September article by David Zweig in the Atlantic suggests that there is a 50% error rate in reporting. More specifically, a team of Johns Hopkins researchers recently reported that when they looked at a group of about 48,000 children in the US infected with the virus, they found no (zero) COVID deaths among the healthy kids.

How did we get here? This type of available evidence that has existed for well over one year now, and so my argument is taking on urgency, especially with recent reporting that Pfizer‘s COVID vaccine could be rolled out to babies as young as six months in the US this winter. The pharmaceutical company has recently announced that it plans to go to the FDA to get authorization for vaccination of 5 to 12 year old children based on a study it claims to have completed. I consider this absolutely reckless and dangerous, based on lack of safety data, poor research methodology, and without any scientific basis whatsoever. This point about safety is critical, and ignoring it places our children in danger.

With this background, I knew of the very low risk to children from the first but wanted scientific documentation of why this low risk existed to help support my argument against these injections in our children. What, if any, were the underlying biological or molecular explanations for such negligible risk? Is there one? The evidence presented below may help explain why children are not candidates for the COVID vaccines (see here and here) , may well be immune, and can be considered “fully vaccinated.” The evidence will also surround the potential risk of the spike protein to the vaccinee.

The biology behind children’s natural resistance to COVID-19

The key points I wish to base my argument on are as follows:

1.) The ACE 2 receptor plays a key role in fluid balance and blood pressure control (in terms of excretion and retention of salt). However, the virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in the upper respiratory airways). This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread the virus to other children or adults, or even get severely ill.

The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children as  Patel and Bunyavanich reported. By bypassing this natural protection and entering the shoulder deltoid, the vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG) and generated spike, are released into the child’s blood circulation and could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g. hereherehereherehere).

2.) Recent research (August 2021) by Loske deepens our understanding of this natural type biological/molecular protection even further by showing that pre-activated antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study provides evidence that “the airway immune cells of children are primed for virus sensing, resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults”.

3.) When one is vaccinated or get infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution, and clonal evolution of B cells which is key to encoding humoral immune memory. There is recent research evidence by Yang published in Science (May 2021) that blood examined from children retrieved prior to the COVID-19 pandemic have memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2, suggestive of the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses. This is supported by Mateus et al., who reported on T cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection).

Yang et al.’s research underscores the importance of early childhood B cell clonal expansions and cross-reactivity/cross-protection, in subsequent exposures and responses to novel pathogens e.g. SARS-COV-2.  This may well help explain why children are not good candidates for the COVID vaccines, may be/are already be immune and can be considered ‘vaccinated’.  We are thus questioning the wisdom of “[g]iving them a dangerous vaccine has virtually no benefit but significant downsides (like death).”

4.) Building the case against COVID-19 vaccination in children even further, ongoing research and discussion suggest that children are less likely to suffer widespread infection throughout the body and that their immune systems appear capable of eradicating SARS-CoV-2 before it can reproduce in high numbers. Weisberg and Farber et al. suggest (building on research work by Kumar and Faber) that the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. They argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses.

5.) I would also draw attention to the transmission research by Galow et al. in the Journal of Infection   (April 2021) that examined household transmission rates in children and adults. They reported that there was “no transmission from an index-person < 18 years (child) to a household contact < 18 years (child) (0/7), but 26 transmissions from adult index-cases to household contacts < 18 years (child) (26/71, SAR 0=37)”. These findings add to the stable existing evidence that children are not spreading the virus to children but rather that adults are spreading it to children. The findings are in line with overall accumulated evidence that children are less at risk of developing severe illness courses, and also are far less susceptible and likely to spread and drive SARS-CoV-2 (references 1234).

6.) Risk: I argue it is beyond a theoretical risk that children can be harmed by these sub-optimally and safety untested injections. We have the severe morbidity and mortality accumulated in the CDC’s very own VAERS vaccine adverse event database, with 15,000 deaths (and 700,000 adverse reports) in the 1-5 days period post injection (80% linked to the injection). VAERS is known to capture only approximately 1% of the burden. I am not only prognosticating: I am warning, and I do so because the vaccine developers have failed in producing optimal methods and reporting and have not performed the proper safety testing.

There is an emerging discussion that with approximately 570 COVID injection deaths in children registered with VAERS, and the CDC reporting approximately 350 deaths in children since the inception of the emergency (Feb/March 2020), then the vaccine is killing more children than the virus/disease itself (Steve Kirsh, personal communication, September 2nd 2021). The FDA should have never granted approval based on the ‘thin’ data and sub-optimal methods by the vaccine developers.

Again, I support vaccines once properly developed with the proper safety testing that excludes harms. I urgently seek to inform parents and the public so that they understand the risks involved when they make a decision based on a drug or vaccine providing no benefit without bringing risk to the table. The threshold must be set very high to even consider them, especially when we argue that these injections were never needed in children in the first place.

Dr. Patrick Whelan has summarized the research evidence that, if it bears out, shows these injections will be catastrophic for children. Whelan affirms that the spike protein itself is a lethal toxin and devastating to the vasculature (endothelial layer), potentially causing “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs”.

For example, Dr. Whelan points to research by Nuovo et al showing “that in 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral micro-vessels. Furthermore, tail vein injection of the full length S1 spike subunit in mice led to neurologic signs (increased thirst, stressed behavior) not evident in those injected with the S2 subunit. The S1 subunit localizes to the endothelia of micro-vessels in the mouse brain and is a potent neurotoxin.

So, the spike S1 subunit of SARS-CoV-2 alone is capable of being endocytosed by ACE2 positive endothelia in both human and mouse brains, with a concomitant pauci-cellular micro-encephalitis that may be the basis for the neurologic complications of COVID-19. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2) is composed of an mRNA that produces a membrane-anchored full-length spike protein. The mouse studies suggest that an untruncated form of the S1 protein like this may cause a micro-vasculopathy in tissues that express much ACE2 receptor.”

Children are at risk from the inadequately tested COVID-19 injections

What do we conclude? Pulling these emerging research findings together strengthens my case that children are not candidates for the COVID vaccines and should be considered already “fully and completely COVID vaccinated.” Furthermore, as lucidly outlined by Whelan, it would be potentially disastrous to children if we moved forward with vaccines.

We do not have all the answers yet, for the vaccine developers have failed to conduct the proper safety studies, and for the duration that would unravel any harms. Yet as Whelan points out, “it appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.

Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart (perhaps using cardiac MRI, as Puntmann et al. did). Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies, as employed by Magro et al […] It would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs”.

Neither the vaccine developer, nor the FDA, nor Health Canada, nor similar national regulators have ensured that the proper safety testing has been done to ‘exclude harms’ to our children, and therefore I state that under no condition must children get these injections. None! I find this lack a very reckless and dangerous oversight by these regulators, who are supposed to ensure that no unsafe drug, medical device, or vaccine is brought to the market. They have failed thus far. I ask these regulators to please slow down and demand the safety testing, no matter how long it takes. I ask them to conduct proper risk-benefit analyses, and then they will see that the injections are contraindicated in children. Particular care is needed with regard to the potential widespread injection of children before there are any real data on the safety or effectiveness of these injections.

I make this clarion call principally based on the evidence that injections were never needed in children in the first place, given the risk-benefit calculation, but also, critically, on the lack of safety data needed to inform decision-making. These injections are just not needed in our children and can be devastatingly unsafe. I presented above a reasonably plausible and strong biological and molecular explanation of why children should not, and in fact, must not be administered these COVID-19 injections.

In closing, there is very little risk of serious illness or death from COVID to children and no data or evidence or science to justify any of the COVID-19 injections in them. Under no circumstance should we expose children to the risk of the injections or to consider putting children at risk to protect adults. To do so is perverse, reckless, and very dangerous. There is no safety data. The focus rather has to be on early treatment and antibody testing to establish who, if given the capacity of informed consent, is a credible candidate for these injections.

It is very dangerous to layer inoculation on top of existing COVID recovered, naturally acquired immunity; the jabs would convey no benefit and have only potential harm/adverse effects (hereherehereherehere, and here). We must establish who is COVID recovered, possessing natural immunity, as this is a critical information before any injection. Additionally, if public health agency leaders Fauci, Walensky, and Collins continue to demand that our children be vaccinated, then they must remove liability protection for all who benefit financially from it.

What does all of this mean? I am calling for a pause at least on the administration of these vaccines in toto until we can figure out the safety issues. I am calling for a definite ‘no go’ on the administration of any of these injections in children. I think that, given the lack of safety data that could inform decision-making,  it is very dangerous and reckless to move to vaccinate our children, especially given their very low risk of acquiring the pathogen, spreading it, or getting seriously ill once infected. The global data and science are settled on this.

If Dr. Fauci of the NIAID, Dr. Walensky of the CDC, and Dr. Collins of the NIH do not want/offer to remove liability protection, and if the vaccine developers do not offer to do this, then parents must take this as a cue that the injection is potentially dangerous,  that they (Fauci, Walensky, Collins) know or suspect this, and that they know that children may die from these injections (that harms were not ‘excluded’ based on the existing studies). Thus, parents must refuse to allow any such injection of their children.

If these public health leaders do not remove liability given the near zero risk of serious harm from COVID children bring to the table, then there is a problem. If they think and know the injections are safe, removing liability protection should not trouble them. No liability means no trust! If even one child is harmed or dies from these injections, these public health leaders and vaccine companies must be held to account legally for the pain and suffering to the child and his or her family.

by Dr. Paul Elias Alexander