TCW
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
TCW
HomeCOVID-19Would you offer your child as a lab rat for covid jabs?

Would you offer your child as a lab rat for covid jabs?

-

The writer is in the US.

‘MOMMY, can I be a covid lab rat?’ That is a request most parents will never hear and that very few parents would ever want to hear.

But, unlike the more typical ‘Can I have a pony?’ request, letting your child be a covid shot test subject is a request that can actually be granted around the US.

Right now, for example, Pfizer/BioNTech is running a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of its shots (the shot is not a vaccine as it does not prevent catching the virus or transmitting the virus as typical vaccines do) on kids. 

Pfizer has been running radio and other ads looking for test subjects; this is how they describe the study on their ‘Enrolling Children 6 to 23 months old for a COVID-19 Vaccine Study’ website:

‘This study will help us learn how well our updated COVID-19 vaccine works in babies and toddlers who have not been previously vaccinated and see if the number of recommended doses can potentially be reduced for children under the age of 5. The study vaccine has been authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration for children at least 6 months of age. It is designed to protect against the newer COVID-19 variant called XBB.1.5. Your child’s participation in this study could reduce their risk of getting COVID-19.’

The company is running similar trials for older kids and adults.

Clinical trials for drugs and procedures involving children are not inherently wrong and they are conducted safely around the world almost daily. But this trial stands out for a number of reasons. First, the trial only involves kids who have never had a covid shot. The likelihood that a parent who has declined to get the shot for their kids in the first place will say ‘We chose not to get the shots for our kids, but feel free to experiment on them with the stuff we previously declined’ is minimal. 

In other words, if a parent didn’t feed their kid aluminum foil-flavored ice cream before it is highly unlikely they would feed their kid an experimental version of aluminum foil-flavored ice cream, even if you paid them (the trial comes with certain compensation enticements – Pfizer did not respond to a request for exactly what they are in this trial, though industry averages would indicate the pay would be between a few hundred to a few thousand dollars).

Second, there is the matter of ‘informed consent’. A trial subject must give permission freely, be told of any risks, and understand the entire situation. Clearly, nine-month-olds cannot do that. 

It is perfectly legal for parents to give their ‘informed consent’, but here we get into the third problem: the risk/benefit question. For example, during the pandemic (early 2020 to May 2023) the official figures say that were 41 covid deaths in California of kids under five. That number does not differentiate between ‘died with covid’ or ‘died from covid’; that is a debate that continues to rage across the country.

Every death of a child is a tragedy and this article is not intended to lessen that fact. However, children in general were not at all likely to get, let alone die from, Covid during the pandemic.

During the pandemic, there were about (rolling average) 2.4million (about 6 per cent of the total population) under-fives in California, and about 385,000 cases of covid were reported in that age group.

Currently, about 3.2 per cent of California’s under-fives have had the latest shot. That’s on par with the national average. What is interesting is that of the 70,817 kids who have received the shot in the state, 41,224 live in the Bay Area, widely known as liberal and progressive. The Bay Area has 20 per cent of the state’s population, but 57 per cent of the state’s ‘vaccinated’ toddlers and babies. Do not ever think that politics has had nothing to do with covid protocols.

During the pandemic, the overall likelihood of a child dying from/with Covid was about 1 in 60,000; for those over 75 – about 6.5 per cent of the population, or 2.7million – there were about 51,000 from/with Covid deaths, or about 1 in 50.

The risk, clearly, is extremely different depending upon age and general state of health.

With a relative risk of being harmed by covid, the risks of the covid shot itself must be considered carefully – note: no kid in the Pfizer study will get a placebo for comparison purposes.

The covid shots, in the general population, did have significant side-effects and did cause a number of deaths. While these numbers are not broken out by age, in the same time period there were 640 deaths and 89,000 ‘adverse effects’ experienced (much much more than just a sore arm) by Californians.

During the same time period, all other vaccines combined caused 66 people to die and 14,000 to have a reportable ‘adverse effect’. (Note – the numbers are taken from the CDC’s ‘vaccine adverse event reporting system’ (VAERS), a tool it stood by as an early warning device for decades, that is, until the Covid problem numbers got too high.)

That puts the general odds of something bad happening to a person after they get a Covid shot at about 1 in 1,000; some studies have shown it to be 1 in 800. The risk from the shot appears to outweigh the risk of covid itself by a factor of 60 times.

Citing the uncertainty of benefit, it should be noted that the European Union have not cleared the shot at all (with minor exceptions) for under-fives and were hesitant in allowing them for under-18s.

Clearly, the risk outweighs the reward, as it were, and it is unclear – because Pfizer did not answer any request for information/comment (see questions below) – if parents are given those figures when making the decision to enroll their kid in an experimental drug program.

Adults calculate risk and reward constantly – from ‘Can I make that light before it turns red?’ to ‘Should I tease that lion?’ But a seven-month-old is obviously not capable of doing so, and while certain clinical trials do hold out serious hope and are important for society at large, a trial such as this for such a limited reward – kids very, very, very rarely get, let alone suffer seriously, from Covid – seems dubious.

According to the Belmont Report, which set baseline standards for human-involved clinical trials in the late 1970s (it was a government reaction to the horror of the CDC’s own Tuskegee syphilis study), one of the three core standards for justifying clinical trial testing is ‘beneficence’, or an obligation to protect persons from harm by maximizing anticipated benefits and minimizing possible risk and harm.

That risk/benefit calculation obviously changes in regard to other far more common childhood maladies, making participation in those studies potentially far more ‘beneficent’. But in the case of covid, the question is how maximal, as it were, are the anticipated benefits?

Very, very minimal and that is the problem, said Dr Clayton Baker, former Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

‘Given the real and well-established risks of harm (including myocarditis and death), and given the functionally zero potential for benefit (since covid is universally mild in children), the risk-to-benefit ratio for the covid mRNA injections in children is infinitely bad,’ Baker said. ‘There is no ethical reason whatsoever to continue clinical trials of these products in children, and all such trials should be stopped.’

Maybe just get the kid the pony instead.

As noted above, here are the questions to which Pfizer did not reply:

-Exactly how is informed consent handled? I assume a parent/guardian can provide said consent?

-Do (or have) you run trials with previously vaccinated children?

-What child/youth trials have been run in the past and what have been their results?

-What is the compensation amount?

-Have any previous trials shown conclusively that the vaccine ameliorates Covid severity in children?

-When and in what manner did the FDA approve this trial?

-When do you expect to conclude the trial?

-Is this trial aimed at testing a ‘booster’ shot or to cover a new variant?

-Has any child in any trial conducted had a significant and serious reaction requiring hospitalization and/or led to death?

-It appears one of the points of the study is to figure out how to cut the number of doses as well as check effectiveness. Is that correct?

-How many children – nationwide and in California specifically – have signed up for/been through the trial so far?

-What are the differences between trials involving children and those involving adults?

-Will Pfizer conduct trials each time it comes out with new variant vaccine shot?

This article appeared in Brownstone Institute on March 20, 2024, and is republished by kind permission. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Thomas Buckley
Thomas Buckley
Thomas Buckley runs a small communications and planning consultancy in California.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.