Part 1 explored the pointless mandates and ruined livelihoods which resulted from the mandates for vaccines which are not capable of preventing transmission, or infectivity, and with the only discernible benefit being that they temporarily lessen the severity of symptoms. After 6 months, and especially for the old, the frail and for men, that window of benefit is even shorter.
Now the debate turns to the FDA’s approval of the vaccine for children between the ages of 5-11, with full knowledge that symptom severity is not an issue with this cohort, so the vaccine’s only known benefit has no positive impact on them. However, there is, at this point, a preponderance of evidence that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is considerably higher in this cohort than any other, severely limiting the small benefit profile the vaccines had to begin with.
The “study” that the FDA recently used to justify vaccinating 5-11-year-olds was woefully underpowered and cannot address even the most basic of safety questions, especially around myocarditis. Hey, that’s just how the pharma companies roll, but the FDA is supposed to not let them get away with such self-absorbed study design. Yet they did.
How are our public health “leaders” allowing this to pass, knowing full well that the approval will likely lead to mandates in schools in the following months? Again, we face the dark facts here about where our government and society is headed in Part 2.