More Children Have Died From COVID Shot Than From COVID

More Children Have Died From COVID Shot Than From COVID

One team published an engineering analysis to determine the current underreporting factor (URF) from the VAERS information and found the factor to be 41. When applied against the government data they found 173% more children died from the vaccine than from the illness
Using this same URF, the number of deaths from COVID rose to 815,326 and the number permanently disabled to 1,338,404. To date, the total reported deaths from the infection is 803,043, which means the shot has killed more children and adults than the virus
Although there is little reason to give children the shot, officials are spinning the idea that it is needed for herd immunity. Yet, health officials must be aware there is a significant lack of evidence to support this, and children are dying in the process
Pilot deaths and injuries affect commercial flights, logistical distribution of goods and military readiness. In one affidavit as part of a federal lawsuit against the military vaccine mandate, physician Lt. Col. Theresa Long alleges protocols are not followed after the COVID shot


Many scientists and health experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is unnecessary and extremely risky. Since the beginning of the pandemic, it has been obvious that children were at exceptionally low risk for hospitalization and death from the infection.1 Despite this, massive efforts are underway to ensure that every child gets a shot.

If the current data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)2 are any indication of what the future holds, we are facing the greatest public health calamity in modern history. I believe it is not a new COVID-19 variant causing this, but the current vaccination campaign. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that the deaths caused by the vaccines will end up far exceeding the number of deaths from the illness.

Despite the clear and present dangers of this genetic therapy, vaccine makers, encouraged and endorsed by government health agencies, are steamrolling ahead with trials and recommendations for the shot in children. In May 20213 parents found out that their children can get vaccinated without their consent if they fall under something called the “mature minor” doctrine.

This allows providers to treat minors, without parental consent, under certain circumstances. The age group under question was between ages 14 and 18 when there is a “rebuttable presumption of capacity, and the physician may treat without parental consent unless the physician believes that the minor is not sufficiently mature to make his or her own health care decisions.”

In July, two lawsuits were filed in federal court that challenged the Washington D.C. city law which allowed minors to be vaccinated without parental consent.4 In September 2021, The Guardian reported that children aged 12 to 15 in the U.K. may be administered a COVID-19 shot by teams in the school system without parental consent.5

If parents do not consent but the child wants the vaccine, the team can determine if a 12-year-old is able to make an informed decision. Most recently, one California mother spoke to the news media and expressed outrage after the school system allegedly offered her son a pizza in exchange for his taking the genetic therapy shot.6

With each passing month, it becomes more obvious that the battleground in the fight for liberty and freedom has been taken to our young children. A recent review of data7 from the CDC and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows that more children have died from the vaccine than have died from the illness.


VAERS Underreporting Factor Affects Data

To compare the number of deaths from COVID illness against those who have died from the genetic therapy injection, we must address the known underreporting factor in VAERS. To date, the VAERS database is the only reporting system used by the CDC and FDA that is accessible to the public. According to VAERS, it:8

“… is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients.”

Additionally, it is the only area where the public, including doctors and other medical professionals, can voluntarily report vaccine adverse events, including death. According to VAERS,9 health care professionals are mandated by law to report serious injury adverse events that occur within a specified time period after the shot, and those events that are listed by the manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses.

However, the system only “encourages” providers to report events after vaccination whether the shot caused the event or not. In other words, the system depends on the health care professionals' knowledge that the VAERS system exists and their willingness to spend time filling out the document which asks for:

Medical information and history on the patient

The facility where the injection was given

The contact information on the person completing the form

The vaccine type, manufacturer and lot number

The best doctor or healthcare professional to contact about the adverse event

What area of the body where the vaccine was injected

A description of the adverse events and treatment

The results or outcome of the adverse events

Medical tests and laboratory results that were done

Any vaccines that were given in the month before the genetic therapy injection was given.

The manufacturer, lot number and site where those additional injections were given

Any adverse events to any previous vaccines the patient may have had

The patient's race and ethnicity

The date and time the adverse event started

The patient’s age at the time of vaccination

Allergies to medications, foods or other products

Whether the patient was pregnant at the time of vaccination

Any illnesses in the month leading up to the vaccination

Any chronic or long-standing health conditions

Any prescriptions, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements or herbal remedies being taken at the time of vaccination

While much of this information is necessary for data tracking, you can see how the time-consuming nature of filling out this form can easily become overwhelming when doctors have multiple patients with adverse events from the COVID-19 shots.11 Lack of knowledge of the system, and a growing physician shortage12 with subsequent lack of time have also likely contributed to the underreporting factor (URF).

In an early grant report submitted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the VAERS system, the writers admitted that:13

“Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

As of December 3, 2021, there were 946,461 adverse events and 19,886 deaths reported to the system.14 If only 1% of the events are reported, this translates to 94.64 million adverse events and 1.98 million deaths. To ascertain a better estimate of how many people have been injured from the current genetic injection, the issue of the URF was again addressed in a paper published in November 2021.15

The process for defining a new URF was published in a 62-page paper.16 Using an engineering analysis of the available data and judgment based on peer reviewed literature and expertise of the scientists, an underreporting factor of 41 was determined.

Agency Data Show 173% More Children Died From Shot Than Virus


While evaluating the data, one of the writers of the paper, Steve Kirsch, recognized the gravity of the situation as it relates to the number of children who have died after taking the vaccine versus the number who have died from the illness. CDC data ending December 8, 2021,17 shows 757 children younger than 18 were listed as casualties of COVID-19.

He points out that many of these deaths, like those in adults, are likely children who died with COVID and not from COVID.18 However, to maintain simplicity, he used those numbers for comparison. Then, using data from VAERS ending December 3, 2021, he found 32 deaths from the vaccine.

Using the URF of 41, this suggests there have been 1,312 deaths that are likely to have been caused by the injection as compared to the 757 deaths the CDC records as having been caused by the illness. If you do the math, this means the shot has killed roughly 173% more children and adults than the virus.

 
Adverse Event                                                                      VAERS20                                       Using URF
Deaths                                                                                  19,886                                            815,326
Anaphylaxis                                                                         8,432                                              345,712
Miscarriage                                                                          3,230                                             132,430
Permanently disabled                                                        32,644                                           1,338,404
Severe allergic reaction                                                     35,009                                            1,435,369
Hospitalizations                                                                  102,857                                          4,217,134
Bell’s Palsy                                                                           11,896                                             487,736
Myocarditis/Pericarditis                                                    16,918                                             693,638


Pilot Deaths, Injuries and Shot Mandates Affect Shortage

Pilot deaths and injuries affect commercial flights, logistical distribution of goods and military readiness. In mid-2020, thousands of pilots were laid off or decided to retire when flights were canceled around the country and around the world during lockdowns. Government mandates for the genetic therapy shot have also curbed the hiring of potential aviators.21

It takes up to two years to train a pilot, and Boeing estimates there will be a need for more than 600,000 new pilots over the next two decades. After the release of the shot in 2021, some noted an excessive number of pilot deaths in 2021, versus the number who died in 2019 and 2020.22

As the data on this situation continue to be released, it's important to note that one Army flight surgeon has also stepped forward to warn that the COVID jab may increase the risk of sudden cardiac death among military pilots.23

Physician Lt. Col. Theresa Long filed an affidavit alleging the Army isn't following DOD protocols to screen for side effects of myocarditis associated with the Pfizer and Moderna shots. The affidavit is part of a federal lawsuit against the vaccine mandate for the U.S. military. In the affidavit Long claims:


“... there is no functional myocardial screening currently being conducted … it is my professional opinion that substantial foreseen risks currently exist, which require proper screening of all flight crews. Based on the DOD’s own protocols and studies, the only two valuable methodologies to adequately assess this risk are through MRI imaging or cardio biopsy which must be carried-out.”


In October 2021, The Defender,25 the publication of the Children's Health Defense, asked a question that many may have overlooked. Are these vaccine mandates that appear to be reducing critical services and personnel, such as pilots, health care providers and first responders, an intentional sabotage designed to weaken America and expand control?

The loss of critical pilots is not only the result of death, but also life-altering disabilities after the shot. The Defender26 covered Sen. Ron Johnson’s, R-Wis., expert panel on COVID vaccine injuries, during which a 33-year-old commercial airline pilot from Cleveland, Mississippi, testified about his injuries.

Cody Flint had been healthy with no underlying medical conditions before receiving Pfizer’s genetic therapy injection. His first dose was February 1, 2021. Within 30 minutes he developed a severe headache that evolved into a burning sensation in his neck. Two days later he realized something wasn't right, but only after having taken his airplane into the air. He described what happened next:


“I was starting to develop tunnel vision and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into my flying I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident, though I do not remember doing this.”


The doctors initially told him he had an attack of vertigo and a severe panic attack. However, without a history of either, and a continuing decline of his medical condition, the doctors then told him that ”only an adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccination or major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.”

After one year and numerous spinal taps and two surgeries, Flint shared that the vaccine stole his career and his future. He spent all his savings to pay his medical bills and his family “is on the verge of losing everything we have.”.

Statistical Tricks Behind Fear Mongering


It is important to note here that the claims made by Pfizer that the vaccine is 95% effective is not an effectiveness rating you may imagine. You might think that 95% effective means that the shot protects 95 out of 100 people.

But that is something called a relative risk reduction, which actually is the difference in event rates for both groups being studied.28 In other words, it’s the reflection of the number of vaccinated people who got COVID during the trials compared to the number who were not vaccinated. If you look at the absolute risk reduction, which is far more relevant for public health measures, you’ll see that number is actually less than 1%.29

This means that out of 100 people who got the injection, it is effective for less than one person. While this makes the vaccine of dubious benefit, it also speaks to the propaganda and fear-mongering vaccine makers and vaccines stakeholders have used to promote the dangerous shot — especially when the National Institutes of Health says absolute risk reduction “is the most useful way of presenting research results.”


Experts Are Using Herd Immunity Reasoning to Convince Parents

Since children have little reason to get the COVID shot, health officials are spinning the idea that they should be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity. They want you to believe that not only should you look at the people around you as vectors of disease, but also that children could be asymptomatic carriers and supposedly silently spreading a deadly disease to Grandma's house.

What they aren’t telling you, and the media is not covering, are the studies that show children are not driving the pandemic, and in fact appear less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults.31 The Children’s Health Defense noted:

​"In short, public health leaders say, parents must 'vaccinate the young to protect the old.' Given the federal government's estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefit."


Herd immunity occurs when enough people have acquired immunity to an infectious disease so that it no longer is widely spread in the community. This is calculated using a reproductive number or R0.33 This is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person. R1 means that one person who is infected is expected to infect one other person.

When R0 is below 1 it indicates that cases are declining and R0 above 1 suggests that they are on the rise. While it's far from an exact science, a person's susceptibility to infection is known to vary depending on factors including age, health and contacts within the community.

The initial calculation for COVID-19 health intervention tracking was based on assumptions that each person had the same susceptibility and would mix randomly with others in the community. However, a study published in Nature Reviews Immunology34 suggested the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 may need adjustment since children are less susceptible to the disease. The scientists wrote:


"Another factor that may feed into a lower herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 is the role of children in viral transmission. Preliminary reports find that children, particularly those younger than 10 years, may be less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity."


In other words, the idea that we must vaccinate children to protect adults is not backed by evidence in this illness. After decades of studying vaccine research and holding responsible positions in health care, you would hope that individuals like Dr. Anthony Fauci,36 director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Dr. Rochelle Walensky,37 director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should understand the science.

If an assumption is made that these individuals do understand the science that doesn’t support vaccinating children, and they have at least glanced at the VAERS data collected by the CDC and FDA, then you must ask the question — what is the underlying goal of vaccinating children with a potentially lethal and disabling shot when they have an exceedingly low risk of severe COVID-19 or dying from the illness?

The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical
experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds,
conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the
practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such
experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other
methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must
be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This
means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without
the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This
latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature,
duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests
upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is
a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random
and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal
experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the
experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical
and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to
believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the
humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to
protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.
The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of
the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to
bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state
where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared
to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe,
in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required
of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury,
disability, or death to the experimental subject.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

BEREADYWHENHECOMES.COM