FIVE FREEDOMS: 6 Studies Showing Why Children Don’t Need — and Shouldn’t Get — a COVID Vaccine
We now have a major crisis as the race is on to vaccinate our 5- to 11-year-old children who bring no risk to the table, with a vaccine that has been shown to be sub-optimal and potentially harmful.
When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and/or ignored natural immunity.
Yet these public health experts and many doctors and scientists know that no vaccine can confer the type of robust, full, sterilizing and life-long immunity to COVID that natural-exposure immunity confers.
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) know anyone exposed, infected and recovered from SARS-CoV-2 has acquired cellular immunity.
They know how natural immunity works, yet they continue to deceive the public on this issue by falsely insisting vaccines are the only answer to “ending the pandemic.”
The authors of a 2008 study on the 1918 pandemic virus showed how potent and long-lived natural immunity is, and how the immune system generates new antibodies if and when needed (re-exposed).
The researchers wrote:
“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains … the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101 … the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus … The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin.
“The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.
“ … here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”
The very same CDC that fights against COVID natural immunity, argues just the opposite when it comes to chickenpox.
Guidance on the CDC website, “Chickenpox Vaccination: What Everyone Should Know,” states: “People 13 years of age and older who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine should get two doses, at least 28 days apart.”
In this reasonable guidance, the CDC says you need the chickenpox jab if you “have never had chickenpox.” If you have had it, then you do not need the vaccine.
The CDC goes even further, stating: “You do not need to get the chickenpox vaccine if you have evidence of immunity against the disease.” So if someone has had chickenpox and recovered, and can demonstrate that via a laboratory test, they don’t need the vaccine.
Again, this makes sense. All parents know this, and have for generations. You do not need a vaccine for measles, if you already had measles and cleared the rash and recovered. Natural, beautiful robust immunity, typically lasts for the rest of a person’s life.
The same goes for the CDC’s guidance for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The CDC clearly states no MMR vaccine is needed if “You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.”
So, what is different for COVID-19? Is something other than science at play here?
We now have a major crisis as the race is on to vaccinate our 5- to 11-year-old children who bring no risk to the table, with a vaccine that has been shown to be sub-optimal and carrying risks.
We even have one of the FDA advisory committee members, Dr. Eric Rubin, who is also lead editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stating: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”
This is a shocking statement by someone who played a role in the decision-making, and should lead us to examine if Rubin and others on that committee were conflicted in terms of relationships to the vaccine developers.
Rubin further stated: “The data show that the vaccine works and it’s pretty safe … we’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet,” he said, referring to a heart condition called myocarditis.
So then why would Rubin and others agree to expose our children to potential harm from a vaccine for an illness that poses little risk to children, if they have serious concerns and admit they have not and cannot yet measure the safety?
This depth of uncertainty should never exist in any drug or vaccine that the FDA regulates, much less a drug officials propose to administer to 28 million children. Something is very wrong here.
It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading to adults as seen in household transmission studies, or of taking it home or becoming ill, or dying — this is settled scientific global evidence ((references 1, 2, 3, 4).
An April 2021 study in the Journal of Infection (April 2021) examined household transmission rates in children and adults. The authors reported 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.
Why vaccinate our children for this mild and typically non-consequential virus when they bring protective innate immunity towards this SARS-VoV-2, other coronaviruses and other respiratory viruses?
Why push to vaccinate our children who may well be immune due to prior exposure (asymptomatic or mild illness) and cross-reactivity/cross-protection? Why not consider assessing their immune status?
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche writes that children’s innate immunity:
“… normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity.”
Here are six studies that make the case for not vaccinating children:
1. A 2020 Yale University report indicates children and adults display very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection which explains why they have far less illness or mortality from COVID.
According to the study:
“Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 outbreak, scientists have observed that children infected with the virus tend to fare much better than adults … researchers reported that levels of two immune system molecules — interleukin 17A (IL-17A), which helps mobilize immune system response during early infection, and interferon gamma (INF-g), which combats viral replication — were strongly linked to the age of the patients. The younger the patient, the higher the levels of IL-17A and INF-g, the analysis showed…these two molecules are part of the innate immune system, a more primitive, non-specific type of response activated early after infection.”
2. Studies by Ankit B. Patel and Dr. Supinda Bunyavanich show the virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited (less) expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways).
This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place, or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children. By bypassing this natural protection (limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid, this could release vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG), and generated spike into the circulation that could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g., here, here, here, here, here).
3. William Briggs reported on the n=542 children who died (0-17 years (crude rate of 0.00007 per 100 and under 1 year old n=132, CDC data) since January 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID linked to their death. This does not indicate whether, as Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Marty Makary has been clamoring, the death was “causal or incidental.” That said, from January 2020, 1,043 children 0-17 have died of pneumonia.
Briggs reported:
“There is no good vaccine for pneumonia. But it could be avoided by keeping kids socially distanced from each other — permanently. If one death is “too many,” then you must not allow kids to be within contact of any human being who has a disease that may be passed to them, from which they may acquire pneumonia. They must also not be allowed in any car … in one year, just about 3,091 kids 0-17 died in car crashes (435 from 0-4, 847 from 5-14, and 30% of 6,031 from 15-24). Multiply these 3,000 deaths in cars by about 1.75, since the COVID deaths are over a 21-month period. That makes about 5,250 kids dying in car crashes in the same period — 10 times as many as Covid.”
Briggs concluded: “there exists no justification based on any available evidence for mandatory vaccines for kids.”
4. Weisberg and Farber et al. suggest (and 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 (optimally differentiate) more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 for an effective robust response.
5. Research published in August 2021 by J. Loske deepens our understanding of this natural type biological/molecular protection even further by showing that “pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection … the airway immune cells in children are primed for virus sensing…resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.”
6. When one is vaccinated or becomes infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution and clonal evolution of B cells, which is key to encoding humoral immune memory.
Research published in May 2021 showed that blood examined from children retrieved prior to 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 (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).
There is no data or evidence or science to justify any of the COVID-19 injections in children. Can the content of these vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier in children? We don’t know because it wasn’t studied.
There is no proper safety data. The focus rather has to be on early treatment and testing (sero antibody or T-cell) to establish who is a credible candidate for these injections, as it is dangerous to layer inoculation on top of existing COVID-recovered, naturally acquired immunity.
There is no benefit and only potential harm/adverse effects (here, here, here).
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense-Originally published on 11/04/2021