COVID Vaccines Would Kill 117 Children Aged Five to 11-Year-Olds in Order to Save One Child Dying from COVID

In this Substack article, Toby Rogers looks at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Guidance for Health Economics Studies Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2019 Update which describes the “21 things that every health economics study in connection with vaccines must do.

Rogers said that based on the document, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) risk-benefit analysis of the Pfizer Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for children aged 5 to 11 years has violated at least half of the guidance. He, however, focuses his article on one single factor: the Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) which is an important metric for measuring the effectiveness of a vaccine. Rogers says that in the case of COVID vaccines, the NNTV is ridiculously high. He says, “The numbers that health policymakers should really want to know are the NNTV to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. But with the NNTV to prevent a single case already so high, and with significant adverse events from coronavirus vaccines averaging about 15% nationwide, Pharma and the FDA dare not calculate an NNTV for hospitalizations, ICU, and deaths, because then no one would ever take this product”.

Here are the highlights of Rogers’ analysis:

  • Based on Pfizer’s clinical for children, the NNTV is infinity. This is a clear indication that there is something wrong with the design for the trial. Rogers says that the trial was too small and too short to measure anything.
  • NNTV to prevent one fatality in children aged 5 to 11 years is 630,775. And since the vaccine is two-dose, NNTV per injection is 1,261,550.
  • For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.

Rogers updated his article following the approval of the Pfizer shot for children aged 5 to 11 years [see FDA Panel Recommends Pfizer’s Low-dose Covid Jab for Young Children Ages Five to 11 Without the Safety Data]. He dismantles the NNTV computation made by the CDC.

He says, that the CDC’s estimate is “untethered from reality…she [Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official] claimed that Then she claimed the NNTV to prevent a single hospitalization is between 2,213 and 8,187. This is dishonest and a violation of scientific norms. NNTV is calculated by dividing 1 by the Absolute Risk Reduction. There was no Absolute Risk Reduction in hospitalizations in the Pfizer clinical trial in kids five to 11, because no one was hospitalized in either the treatment or control group. 1/0 is “undefined” not 8,187.”

Editor’s Note: The conversation about NNTV is a touchy one. For example, the board of a highly respected journal on vaccines (aptly called Vaccines) threatened to resign if the journal did not retract a study showing that the COVID vaccines killed two people for every three lives it saves [see COVID vaccines kill two people for every three lives it saves, Scientists quit board to pressure journal into retracting study showing COVID vaccines can kill]. Meanwhile, Rogers’ article has led to his permanent ban from Twitter.

The lack of conversation regarding absolute risk reduction (ARR) and NNTV is a clear indication that governments, Big Pharma, Big Tech, and mainstream media are all covering up the uselessness and the damages caused by these so-called COVID vaccines.

This is also proof that “mainstream science” is flawed. There is no space for debate and true learning. And as the censorship of credible, alternative opinion widens, people die.

Our children are at risk of even greater maladies. Do we truly believe that health experts and government agencies (who have been injuring them with one-size-fits-all approaches to the pandemic) care for our children? If we, as parents do not put our children’s well-being first and reject these vaccines, then who will protect them?

Read Original Article

Read Online

Click the button below if you wish to read the article on the website where it was originally published.

Read Offline

Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *