As you likely know, the new COVID-19 boosters are out and have been recommended for everybody 6 months and older. In fact, for infants and toddlers, the CDC is recommending not just boosters, but multiple shots to catch up with their recommended number of doses.
Alex Berenson, along with many others, argues that is nuts.
He is a controversial critic of COVID-19 vaccines, so when he tweeted about the risk/reward profile of the COVID vaccines and boosters I decided to dive into his claims to see how they stand up. Since the line of attack against his claims will be ad hominem, I went to the CDC’s own numbers to check out his claims.
What I found was pretty startling. His first claim that vaccinating all children will prevent 0-1 deaths from COVID is indisputably true. The CDC, which is recommending that all children be vaccinated, flat out states that as few as 0 and as many as 1 will be saved by vaccinating each million children.
Only 1. They go on to claim that the maximum number of hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths prevented will be 115.
Now if the risk of each vaccination were zero you might be able to argue that it is worth it, although by any reasonable risk analysis, it clearly would not be. After all, the resources used to purchase and administer millions of vaccines to children could be used for other purposes, including saving lives in other manners, so you have to ask why choose this low-performing method.
Every choice is a trade-off, not to be analyzed in isolation. And indisputably the trade-off is terrible.
But of course, COVID vaccines are not risk-free, and even the CDC and the most avid promoters of the jabs have to admit that there is at least some risk of adverse reactions and even death from the shots themselves.
Berenson rightly points out that the risk from giving the vaccines is substantially greater than the benefits claimed. That, too, is indisputable.
While Berenson’s math on the scale of the risks might be disputed-his claim is that there will be 100-200,000 serious adverse events from giving the jab to children under 18-the basic claim that the risk far outweighs any potential reward is in itself indisputable. The commonly accepted number for adverse events from the shot is in the neighborhood of 1/800 in adults, which is inconceivably higher than other vaccines-there are no great numbers for children. There are plenty of indications that they are higher, but the numbers are less solid.
The CDC has also gone out of its way to NOT collect data on adverse events. They shut down a COVID-specific monitoring system without explanation, and have been known to “lose” reports of child deaths from the vaccine. A recording of the FDA director speaking directly with doctors who wrote a paper about adverse events pretty much shrugs when informed of a child’s death that was reported but fell through the cracks.
“Send me an email.” Okey dokey.
We know for certain the COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis, and despite claims to the contrary a fair number of cases will result in hospitalization and/or permanent heart damage. More often in children than in adults.
I cannot be certain of the causation, but my own ECG changed significantly post-COVID vaccine, showing heart damage in 2 places. The correlation may be spurious, but it may not be. Two successive ECGs showed evidence of cell death in localized regions. I have never had a heart attack. If there is a causal connection it certainly isn’t in the statistics.
It’s not just Berenson and vaccine perma-skeptics who look at these numbers and blanch. Most European countries don’t recommend the jab except for people at high risk of severe COVID, and children are not in that category by a long shot. The numbers look grim for the vaccine save for those in very high-risk categories.
So why is the CDC recommending the shots? We can only guess, but no matter the reasons they are not good. My own sense is that they are determined not to admit they got it wrong, while others believe it is the tight ties between the FDA, the public health establishment, and the pharmaceutical industry. It is probably some combination of factors.
Whatever the case, the CDC isn’t just beclowning itself; it is choosing to harm people with no prospect for benefit. This is a pattern, and cannot be explained by a claim that they are simply misguided. By now the downsides of the vaccines are glaringly obvious, the research is looking bad, and other countries are rejecting the advice the CDC insists on giving.
There is no innocent explanation. Whether the reasons are bureaucratic or pecuniary, they are unforgivable. Every senior leader in these agencies should be fired and investigated.