Why Are We Giving Babies COVID-19 Vaccines That Don't Work?

A CDC-funded study found COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce the risk of infection in children under 5, and may actually increase the risk for some.

Despite persistent recommendations from U.S. health agencies to vaccinate children as young as six months against COVID-19, a new study led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the shots do not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children under 5 years old and may actually increase the risk of infection in some children.

The study, published in a leading medical journal, analyzed data from three cohort studies conducted between September 2022 and April 2023 and found no difference in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

While health agencies claim that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease in young children—who aren’t at risk for severe illness in the first place—the findings of this study show the shots do no such thing, which was a cornerstone of public health messaging during the pandemic.

The Study: What Researchers Found

To determine the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in children under 5, researchers conducted a detailed analysis of three distinct cohort studies. A cohort study involves following a group of individuals over a set period of time to measure specific health outcomes. In this case, the researchers tracked SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 6 months to 4 years over eight months to determine how well they’re protected by vaccines or prior infection.

The researchers, who have ties to the CDC and vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna, admit in the paper that the shots were authorized for young children with “scarce” data showing they could actually prevent severe outcomes.

As part of the study, the researchers collected data on SARS-CoV-2 infection, prior infection history, and symptomatic COVID-19 cases. They determined each child's vaccination status and compared infection rates between the two groups.

The results were clear: There was no measurable difference in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. This means that vaccinated children were just as likely to contract the virus and develop symptoms as unvaccinated children, but unvaccinated children were not at risk of experiencing adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, such as blood clots, myocarditis, or worse, death.

Another notable finding also emerged: Children with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were significantly less likely to become reinfected or develop symptomatic COVID-19 than children who had never had COVID-19. This suggests that natural immunity from a previous infection offers protection against both reinfection and symptomatic illness. Imagine that.

Natural immunity develops when the immune system encounters a virus and produces antibodies and other defenses to fight off future infections. Studies have consistently shown that natural immunity is robust and long-lasting, sometimes providing superior protection compared to vaccine-induced immunity.

The team, led by Leora Feldstein with the CDC, found that among naïve children with no prior infection, those who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had a higher likelihood of infection and symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children. There was no significant protective effect against infection or symptomatic disease when looking at bivalent boosters.

Despite this, U.S. health officials downplayed natural immunity throughout the pandemic, instead emphasizing vaccines as the primary tool for managing COVID-19. Ignoring natural immunity was crucial to justifying the approval of these injections for kids.

While the study did not directly address vaccine safety, data does not support exposing children to potential adverse events, especially when the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in children simply don’t exist.

Given what’s come out in the past few years, I can’t say I’m surprised by this information. But it was hard to watch nonetheless.

Despite persistent recommendations from U.S. health agencies to vaccinate children as young as six months against COVID-19, a new study led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the shots do not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children under 5 years old and may actually increase the risk of infection in some children.

The study, published in a leading medical journal, analyzed data from three cohort studies conducted between September 2022 and April 2023 and found no difference in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

While health agencies claim that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease in young children—who aren’t at risk for severe illness in the first place—the findings of this study show the shots do no such thing, which was a cornerstone of public health messaging during the pandemic.

The Study: What Researchers Found

To determine the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in children under 5, researchers conducted a detailed analysis of three distinct cohort studies. A cohort study involves following a group of individuals over a set period of time to measure specific health outcomes. In this case, the researchers tracked SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated and unvaccinated children aged 6 months to 4 years over eight months to determine how well they’re protected by vaccines or prior infection.

The researchers, who have ties to the CDC and vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna, admit in the paper that the shots were authorized for young children with “scarce” data showing they could actually prevent severe outcomes.

As part of the study, the researchers collected data on SARS-CoV-2 infection, prior infection history, and symptomatic COVID-19 cases. They determined each child's vaccination status and compared infection rates between the two groups.

The results were clear: There was no measurable difference in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. This means that vaccinated children were just as likely to contract the virus and develop symptoms as unvaccinated children, but unvaccinated children were not at risk of experiencing adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines, such as blood clots, myocarditis, or worse, death.

Another notable finding also emerged: Children with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were significantly less likely to become reinfected or develop symptomatic COVID-19 than children who had never had COVID-19. This suggests that natural immunity from a previous infection offers protection against both reinfection and symptomatic illness. Imagine that.

Natural immunity develops when the immune system encounters a virus and produces antibodies and other defenses to fight off future infections. Studies have consistently shown that natural immunity is robust and long-lasting, sometimes providing superior protection compared to vaccine-induced immunity.

The team, led by Leora Feldstein with the CDC, found that among naïve children with no prior infection, those who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had a higher likelihood of infection and symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children. There was no significant protective effect against infection or symptomatic disease when looking at bivalent boosters.

Despite this, U.S. health officials downplayed natural immunity throughout the pandemic, instead emphasizing vaccines as the primary tool for managing COVID-19. Ignoring natural immunity was crucial to justifying the approval of these injections for kids.

While the study did not directly address vaccine safety, data does not support exposing children to potential adverse events, especially when the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in children simply don’t exist.

14 place to be when SHTF

Canada: Yes, see above my comments. Central Quebec is awesome too. Check around Mont-Tremblant or La Malbaie. Underrated places. Manitoba is the friendliest, but not many trees (cheap land up north). Northern Ontario has so many good hidden spot. But way too many people in Ontario in a way. Saskatchewan is great. Northern Alberta/Northern BC are the best spots. NWT is for those who likes the game of life set at EXTREME DIFFICULTY. Forget PEI. New Brunswhick as good places, but not too remote. Nova Scotia is great too.

USA: So many good spots. From Utah to Idaho to Colorado. I’m sure an american could chip in!

Mexico: Forget Baja Cali, too hot. Southern Mexico is unstable politically, although I found a few hidden gems…There's great homestead that are NOT on the internet in central southern Mexico, made mostly by preppers in the 80s. You can find great community.

Guatemala: I am sure there’s some solid hidden gem there, but I haven’t met the friendliest people in this country. It’s rough.

El Salvador: AWESOME PEOPLE. Unfortunetaly, in such a tiny country, it is very hard to be off-the-grid and remote.

Honduras: Forget about it.

Nicaragua: Same.

Costa Rica: I disliked Costa Rica for a few reasons. The locals are really jaded towards white gringo (not without a reason) and everything is SO expensive.

Panama: Northern Panama is the shit. You want to be in a local town (mostly expats) called Boquete, Panama. Chiriqui area…Lots of people are there to retire and are getting ready for the end of it.

Colombia: Ah! Colombia! THE PEOPLE HERE ARE NEXT LEVEL AMAZING. Many young people hablas spanish, so it’s easy. You see…I would want to live in Colombia, end of the world or not. North of Bucaramanqua, I’d want to be there. In the south…many great places. Salento is incredible. Property is still cheap in many areas. A colombian friend will have your back till you die: they value friendship to the highest point. The only downside to Colombia is that there are still gangs in the country…I would avoid any places along highway 40 and 65. This is a good spot. Kind of a secret.

Ecuador: I have mix feelings on Ecuador: Incredible people, but because of huge influx of gringos in the south, there’s a Costa Rican-jaded feelings toward the white man. Avoid Cuenca like the plague.
Now. Ecuador is the prepper’s paradise. You have very remote place and beautiful small villages that couldn’t care less if the world ends or not. This town is sketchy af, so don’t go. But here is where it’s at. So many good place in the South! Just forget Cuenca, but keep your eyes open for homestead owned by rich European…This is a region that I’d be comfortable setting an empire.

Peru: Ah, Peru. I haven’t spent enough time, but I never really felt safe or welcomed in the country.

Bolivia: This is the hidden gem of South America. West of here. North of here. South of here. East of here. All explored. All loved. All already filled with preppers. Most people don’t know, but there are like 10 000 american mennonite living here. This is some advance secret knowledge, boots on the ground shit, so don’t keep that for you. Avoid southern Bolivia: too many criminals.

Chile: Forget northern Chile. Too arid. Southern Chile is the best. Check out Pucon. Here. And here. This is a sort of secret, extremely remote and low traffic border. Tierra Del Fuego is an island: which has incredible advantages…and terrible too. You are depended on the ferry to Argentina or Puerto Natales to get on the island. It also means the fuel needs to be trucked-in, same with food. Many expats live here. The nice thing about Tierra del Fuego is that you get a 8 months visa as a Canadian. You can go to chile for a year on a work holiday visa. The border controls are very chill in Southern Chile/Argentina. I didn’t go there, but I’m sure it’s pretty great off the grid and remote spot.

One thing you need to know about Tierra del Fuego: It’s very hard to go remotely without the cops coming to see you. The cops are very invading: there are control checkpoints EVERYWHERE in Argentina (took over 50 of em). Even to enter a national park on TdF, you need to register to a police checkpoint. If you are American/Canadian, forget about here. It’s very frustrating and totally 1940s Germany style national socialism thing. Forget about owning guns here too.

Argentina. Meh. Nope. I can see a good points on the map, but that’s my least favourite end-of-the-world country to be in.

Brazil: AH YES NOW WE ARE TALKING. Brazil. This. Around here. Around here. This island. Where I will be playing music as the Titanic sinks: here. The world can ends any day, as long as I’m in Brazil with local brazilian on a beach, I’ll have the best time ever. Which is exactly how I want to be facing Death itself: The happiest motherfucker, beer in end, dancing on some cheap latino music, with the nicest people on Earth.

Uruguay: I wouldn’t move here. Too small. Too expensive (fuel is 2.50$ CAD a liter. Something like $8USD/gallon

Paraguay: Never been, but the Bush family but many properties here. Looks like a good spot to be.