I subscribe to a publication called MedpageToday. This is an excellent way to follow what is going on in the mainstream medical discussion, not least to understand better what is wrong with it.
This week it published a piece on the benefits to infants from vaccination during pregnancy, reported in a study published in NEJM on June 22nd (with a linked editorial about how vaccination during pregnancy is “two for the price of one”). In the introduction, the study authors make the following claim: “Infants younger than six months of age are at high risk for complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).”
This came as a surprise, so I checked the source they cite in support of this statement. In short, the source tells us nothing about risk of hospitalisation from contracting COVID-19. All it tells us is the number of hospitalised infants over time per 100,000 in the population, which shows that early January this year, during a surge of Omicron infections, there was of course also a spike in infant hospitalisations; if we look at the general trends we see this in all age-groups. This has nothing to do with the hospitalisation risk of infection at all.
Are infants really at “high risk for complications” of COVID-19? In the general population, the probability of hospitalisation following a Covid infection according to the U.S. CDC in October 2021 was around 5%; this means one in every 20 people infected was admitted to hospital. After Omicron took over, this number went down by 50-70%, to between 1.5-2.5%. And if we look at the latest CDC estimate on relative risk between age groups, children up to 17 have the lowest risk of hospitalisation. For infants in particular, the risk of hospitalisation is about one tenth the risk for the oldest age-group. It might be added that their risk of death is less than 1/330 (0.3%) of the oldest age-group. This is very low risk, not high risk.
Still, according to the authors of this study, infants are “at high risk for complications of coronavirus disease 2019“, contrary to all evidence, referring to a source that doesn‘t address the matter.
Clearly, we should not be concerned with the risk of COVID-19 for infants, for as the numbers tell us, it isn‘t concerning at all; infants are in very little danger from COVID-19. We should in fact be more concerned with the injection of mothers-to-be with substances which health authorities in Scandinavia have not recommended for children under 12, with the exception of Denmark only, a decision the Government now says it regrets. We’ve seen worrying spikes in complications during pregnancy and in infant mortality and stillbirths since the vaccine rollout to pregnant women, though the official studies on this seem designed to conceal it.
We should not be concerned by the low Covid risk to infants. But we should be deeply concerned when we see a study, authored by around 40 medical practitioners and academics, and peer-reviewed by I don‘t know how many, putting forth a claim that is obviously false, and backing it up with a source that doesn‘t support it. The study is funded by the CDC.
What might be the reason? Have all those people become so blinded by a preconceived conclusion, so biased towards what they think they are supposed (and paid) to believe, that they are now unable to understand the simple distinction between hospitalisation risk on infection and disease prevalence? Or have they taken it a step further – do they in fact understand, but choose to ignore or distort the facts to please their peers and superiors, trusting in the safety of numbers? Has dishonesty become normalised now in medical science?
Thorsteinn Siglaugsson is an economist who lives in Iceland. Find him on his Substack page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“What might be the reason?” – follow the money.
“Has dishonesty become normalised now in medical science?” – clearly, the answer is “yes”.
For most, money trumps morals. Once that is understood everything else makes sense.
“The study is funded by the CDC.”
The CDC that is in bed with big pharma.
The Times muppets might like to put Oliver Wright on the case…
I think you may have misunderstood what they meant.
There clearly is a very high risk – not to infants, of course, we’ve known that from the off.
No, there are nevertheless 2 very high risks: 1) the pharma industry missing out on another market and the ability to rake in even more money – particularly with the knowledge that this garbage messes up immune systems, just imagine what it might do to immune systems that have not even developed yet – the potential for life-long medication on a large scale must have them salivating; 2) if it is correct that once this poison is on the children’s vaxx schedule in the US, that means the drug peddlers are free from liability – that risk speaks for itself. The tide is turning, more and more doctors and scientists are finally speaking out, more AEs are being admitted. The pharma cos. know they will be thrown under the bus, they will be desperate for a liability shield.
This past week there was a lovely crack in the facade. Rep. Jim Jordan was grilling ‘Dr’ Birx, Pfauci’s corona co-star during Trump’s briefings in 2020. When asked whether they knew that the vaxx would not stop infections, whether they had lied or just guessed, her answer was: “we hoped”. This is $cience in 2022 – how the “settled science” was based on “hope”.
As a by the by – I saw the video yesterday on the bad cat’s substack and did a search to find more details. I got a number of directly related items in MSM. I did a search just now, no MSM items re this grilling, only links to old news items regarding Jordan and 6 January. In other words, big tech spent the last 24 hours setting up the algos to turn us away from the proof that the entire charade was based on ‘hope’ rather than science and is trying to steer people toward a negative view of Jordan.
It could be a long term investment for the pharma industry – or it could be a spectacular crash, if they lose their popularity.
As Robert F Kennedy has pointed out, the push to get the vaccine approved for infant use, once approved automatically gives the pharmaceuticals immunity against liabilities. They are currently protected during emergency use but once the vaccines get full approval, they become liable for damages unless the vaccine is approved for infant/child use. It’s so obvious at this point, the CDC has been captured by big pharma.
What might be the reason?
Money, Money, Money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world.
My son in law was unwell last week, he did a test (his mother is having treatment for cancer) which was positive. Daughter and 10 week old Granddaughter (who was 6 weeks premature) came to us. Baby had slight temperature a couple of days ago, given paracetamol, was settled.Today daughter had a scratchy throat, did a test which was positive (very faint line). Baby has been fine.
Daughter flapping because she might have infected us. We’ve told her not to worry as we’re unlikely to be badly affected if at all. As we don’t test we won’t know in any case.
Iodine nasal & mouth rinse every 4h. That should prevent it, or at least reduce viral load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ICBBK-d-C0
Senator Rand Paul questioning Fauci….
Plain as a pikestaff, it’s about money and nothing else…..
https://covidmythbuster.substack.com/p/can-vaccines-be-dangerous-to-pregnant
Can Vaccines be Dangerous to Pregnant Women, Babies and Human Reproduction ? – A Credible Mechanism of Action
Interesting article by Marc Girandot.
“Has dishonesty become normalised now in medical science?”
Are you really surprised with people like Gates and Soros around?
Nobody ever listens to us we’re just conspiracy theorists. Think we’re fast becoming spoiler “alertists”!
When a pregnant woman cannot eat “soft cheese” and other foods and supplements, why on earth would any doctor recommend a covid injection, with NO LONG TERM SAFETY DATA FIR MOTHER NOR BABY!!!!!