John Hopkins study found lockdowns had very little if any positive effect or COVID mortality

[Cooke 2,033]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-just-12percent-effective-against-omicron-in-kids-5-to-11-study-finds.html

 

Turns out vaccinating kids was pretty much a waste of time and the risk to them from vaccine injury was completely unjustified.  The doses were too weak, but if they made them more potent it could harm a much higher percentage of kids. And they are the least at risk group for covid complications. 

[jehurey 3,273]

6 minutes ago, Cooke said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-just-12percent-effective-against-omicron-in-kids-5-to-11-study-finds.html

 

Turns out vaccinating kids was pretty much a waste of time and the risk to them from vaccine injury was completely unjustified.

what risks did they have?

 

if there's little to no risk, then it is justified

[Cooke 2,033]

50 minutes ago, jehurey said:

what risks did they have?

 

if there's little to no risk, then it is justified

If covid is at little to no risk then it's not justified. There's a reason they made the doses much weaker for children.  

 

And the company’s final numbers, submitted to the FDA, show that the pediatric dose was 90.7 percent effective at preventing symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in this age group in the few months after inoculation, including over the summer, against the Delta coronavirus variant. The low dose’s side effects were also the standard stuff that’s been seen in older children and young adults—arm pain, fatigue, headaches—but many of them were milder and more tolerable. (Those symptoms got a bit worse at higher vaccine doses, a disincentive to move the kids up the scale.).

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/kids-covid-vaccines-age-smaller-dose/620591/

 

Weird how it went from 90.7% effectiveness in trial to 12% in the real world. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,273]

1 minute ago, Cooke said:

If covid is at little to no risk then it's not justified.

except covid is a risk to children.

 

here let me ask you a simple question

 

how many child death's can be attributed to the vaccine?

 

zero?

 

are child death's due to covid higher than that number?

 

if yes.............then there's no downside to taking the vaccine.

[Cooke 2,033]

Just now, jehurey said:

except covid is a risk to children.

 

here let me ask you a simple question

 

how many child death's can be attributed to the vaccine?

 

zero?

 

are child death's due to covid higher than that number?

 

if yes.............then there's no downside to taking the vaccine.

If you can say covid is a risk to children you can say the same thing for the vaccine. Im not saying don't vaccinate. It should be a more focused approach on kids with compromised immune systems and comorbidities. The vast majority do not need it. Covid19 presents itself as a very mild disease in chikdren. Since the beginnings of the pandemic there have been only 19 deaths to children 12 and under in Canada.  That's less than 1 per month. Meanwhile 80+ is 21,545. These groups cannot be treated the same. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228632/number-covid-deaths-canada-by-age/

[jehurey 3,273]

1 minute ago, Cooke said:

If you can say covid is a risk to children you can say the same thing for the vaccine.

No, you can't

 

I even asked you specifically about that:

Quote

 

how many child death's can be attributed to the vaccine?

 

zero?

 

what makes you think you can straight up lie and try to declare that the vaccine is as hurtful to children as the actual virus, with no evidence to support such a thing?

[Cooke 2,033]

19 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No, you can't

 

I even asked you specifically about that:

what makes you think you can straight up lie and try to declare that the vaccine is as hurtful to children as the actual virus, with no evidence to support such a thing?

Im not lying. An adverse affect is an adverse affect. Covid poses a risk to children with comorbidities. Not healthy ones. There is a risk to getting sick but there's also a risk of vaccine injury. No medical procedure has zero risk. What planet do you live on? It's fucking Pfizer for fucks sakes. Did they not have to pay out billions in damages because they lied about the safety of one of their drugs? 

 

If you have a perfectly healthy child who has a 99.999789% chance of surviving covid, would you honestly get them vaccinated even though we have no long term studies of mRNA vaccines in humans? Is that minuscule risk of Covid worth it? 

 

If your child has diabetes or is overweight then yes I would say go for it. We know covid is much more severe for those that are already unhealthy. 

[Cooke 2,033]

 

[jehurey 3,273]

24 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Im not lying. An adverse affect is an adverse affect

Of which, there are no known side effects to the vaccine.

 

therefore making it almost completely risk free and therefore there is no reason to not take it, because ANY positive effect it has to reduce the effects/spread/hospitalizations from the virus is a net-positive.

 

correct?

[Cooke 2,033]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Of which, there are no known side effects to the vaccine.

 

therefore making it almost completely risk free and therefore there is no reason to not take it, because ANY positive effect it has to reduce the effects/spread/hospitalizations from the virus is a net-positive.

 

correct?

There are no known side effects? 

 

,https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

They are rare. But they do exist. It's really not so complicated jehurey. If you have a child that is at risk for covid then get them vaccinated. If they are healthy and they have a robust normal immune system then there really is no point. All it does is expose them to another form of risk for extremely low benefit. 12% effectiveness after 28 days? Seriously, what is the point? 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Cooke

[jehurey 3,273]

1 minute ago, Cooke said:

There are no known side effects? 

 

,https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

Nope.

 

None for the diluted chilndren's vaccine, and definitely not any that are worse than the effects of the virus.

 

And there are NO "LONG TERM RISKS" of vaccines.

 

I will repeat this fact once again.

 

Out of all goverment tested and approved vaccines...........there has never been any known or discovered side effect past four months of the vaccine having been administered.

 

...............ever.

 

............in the history of vaccines. No recorded side-effect past four months.

 

There is no such thing as a "potential long-term" risk, because the contents of the vaccine do not stay in the human body for more than a temporary period of time.

[Cooke 2,033]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Nope.

 

None for the diluted chilndren's vaccine, and definitely not any that are worse than the effects of the virus.

 

And there are NO "LONG TERM RISKS" of vaccines.

 

I will repeat this fact once again.

 

Out of all goverment tested and approved vaccines...........there has never been any known or discovered side effect past four months of the vaccine having been administered.

 

...............ever.

 

............in the history of vaccines. No recorded side-effect past four months.

 

There is no such thing as a "potential long-term" risk, because the contents of the vaccine do not stay in the human body for more than a temporary period of time.

How can you prove no long term risk based on zero available data?

 

These vaccines were approved under a emergency use authorization. Is there really an emergency to children right now that we need to vaccinate them using a vaccine based off a viral strain from 2020 that has extremely low efficacy? WHAT IS THE POINT?!

[jehurey 3,273]

Just now, Cooke said:

How can you prove no long term risk based on zero available data?

 

Sweetie, you're doing nothing but moving goalposts at this point.

 

The data is ALL OTHER VACCINES EVER MADE AND APPROVED.

 

There is no history of vaccines having NEW SIDE EFFECTS occur past four months of them being administered.

 

None.

 

You're simply arguing theoretical chemistry at this point.

 

It doesn't stay in the body for that long.

 

You simply BELIEVE that it could stay in the body for that long.................based on no evidence.

 

On the other hand, we know viruses can stay dormant in your body for years/decades (chickenpox becomes shingles when you are elderly).

[Mr. Impossible 411]

2 hours ago, Cooke said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfizer-covid-vaccine-was-just-12percent-effective-against-omicron-in-kids-5-to-11-study-finds.html

 

Turns out vaccinating kids was pretty much a waste of time and the risk to them from vaccine injury was completely unjustified.  The doses were too weak, but if they made them more potent it could harm a much higher percentage of kids. And they are the least at risk group for covid complications. 

Do you even read what you post? 

[Mr. Impossible 411]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

No, you can't

 

I even asked you specifically about that:

what makes you think you can straight up lie and try to declare that the vaccine is as hurtful to children as the actual virus, with no evidence to support such a thing?

It's not lying when you're stupid I suppose. 

[Cooke 2,033]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Impossible said:

Do you even read what you post? 

Yes. Did you watch Dr Prasad MD MPH explain the findings to you?

[Cooke 2,033]

Good lord you people have so much trust in the FDA it's frightening. It's like oxycotin didn't happen. And every other drug they have approved and recalled years later.  Half the FDA's funding comes from the fucking companies it's supposed to regulate.

 

Nope, no conflict of interest there. Just keep trusting massive corporations and government, they always have you best interest's at heart. My God you guys are naive. https://today.uconn.edu/2021/05/why-is-the-fda-funded-in-part-by-the-companies-it-regulates-2/

[jehurey 3,273]

Just now, Cooke said:

Good lord you people have so much trust in the FDA it's frightening.

you're watching a fucking youtuber...........who does NO RESEARCH, with NO RESEARCH FACILITIES, and conducted NO TESTS.

 

You don't have any credible source............and you're lecturing us about the concept of "trust"

 

You aren't looking for the truth.

 

You have an agenda, and will post anything that fits your agenda.

[Cooke 2,033]

8 minutes ago, jehurey said:

you're watching a fucking youtuber...........who does NO RESEARCH, with NO RESEARCH FACILITIES, and conducted NO TESTS.

 

You don't have any credible source............and you're lecturing us about the concept of "trust"

 

You aren't looking for the truth.

 

You have an agenda, and will post anything that fits your agenda.

A youtuber.. He's an actual Dr. A highly very regarded one lol. Omg don't watch YouTube. Trust the TV only!! Fuck you're dumb. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Prasad

Edited March 1, 2022 by Cooke

[Mr. Impossible 411]

14 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Yes. Did you watch Dr Prasad MD MPH explain the findings to you?

Yes, now did you read it yourself?