Can Kids Get Seriously Ill With Covid?

Can Kids Get Seriously Ill With Covid?

Can Kids Get Seriously Ill With Covid?

Stuff Does It Again – A Horror Headline Hanging by a Thread

Stuff’s article implies that more children are getting seriously ill with Covid-19 and should be vaccinated, citing an international study.  However, there are a number of gaping holes not only in Stuff’s reporting but also in the study cited.

This is what the study actually says.

“Although the overall proportion of SARS-CoV-2–negative youths who experienced severe outcomes did not differ from that among test-positive youths, among hospitalized children, those who were SARS-CoV-2 positive were more likely to experience severe outcomes.”

 

The Study

January 11, 2022
Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2–Positive Youths Tested in Emergency Departments The Global PERN–COVID-19 Study
Anna L. Funk, PhD, MSc1; Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE2,3; Nathan Kuppermann, MD, MPH4; et al

Conflicts of interest.

  1. Dr Florin reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, of which Tony Fauci is the director) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute outside the submitted work.
  2. Dr Ambroggio reported receiving grants from Pfizer outside the submitted work.
  3. Dr Malley reported receiving personal fees from Merck as a consultant, grants from Pfizer, grants from Astellas, and reported being a board member and consultant for Affinivax Scientific Founder outside the submitted work.
  4. Dr Morris reported royalties from intellectual property from UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland; grants from NIH/NHLBI, grants from FDA, and grants from NIH/NCCIM outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr Morris had a patent for therapeutics related to Arginine bioavailability in COVID-19 and MISC pending.
  5. Dr Becker reported receiving Primary Children’s Hospital Fee per enrolled study participant from University of Utah during the conduct of the study.

No other disclosures were reported. Researchers will often check whether the authors of published studies have conflicts of interest that could affect the way they interpret their data.  As you can see here, there is significant conflict of interest.  It is worth pointing out that the doctors and scientists of NZDSOS gain nothing by standing up and speaking out.  Many of us have lost jobs and possibly careers.  Yet, we continue to speak out as we cannot stand idly by while harms are being committed in our names as doctors.

Children in the study.

There are significant concerns about the way in which the data collected for the purposes of this study have been presented in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Network Open.
This study was designed as a multi-centred prospective cohort study and data was collected at 41 Emergency departments across 8 countries. Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. There is no mention of New Zealand’s part in the study, as stated by Stuff.

All patients recruited to the study were under 18 years of age and presented with symptoms of febrile respiratory illness (fever, cough, rhinorrhoea, congestion, wheezing, difficulty breathing, sputum production, sore throat, or apnoea). The study placed emphasis on the development of severe clinical outcomes as the selected endpoints. These are defined to include: cardiac or cardiovascular (cardiac arrest, cardiac ischemia, congestive heart failure, endocarditis, myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke), infectious (disseminated intravascular coagulation, mastoiditis, sepsis with bacteraemia, septic shock, toxic shock syndrome), neurologic (encephalitis, meningitis), respiratory (acute respiratory distress syndrome, empyema, necrotizing or cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, pleural effusion or pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum requiring drainage, respiratory failure), and death. In the description of the studies objectives the authors report making a comparison in the frequency of severe clinical outcomes in subjects who returned a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test compared to those who returned a negative PCR test.

There were 10 382 study participants in total, 3222 (31%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The larger group of 7160 (69%) participants failed to return a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test during the study period. A fair representation of the data collected over the course of the study would have shown clinical outcomes for both arms of the study. It is striking that every published chart, table figure and diagram the published in the body of the study pertain only to the smaller study sub-group (those that returned a positive PCR test). The flow diagram (Figure 1 in the publication) copied below provides an illustration of this point. The data pertaining to the entire PCR negative arm of the study is not represented plainly in the publication and can only be found in the online supplemental material.

The Interpretation

Unfortunately, this study exemplifies significant reporting bias as it selectively and asymmetrically emphasizes one arm of the study over the other. The presentation of data is largely confined to those participants that returned a positive PCR Test for SAR-CoV-2 with very little attention paid to the other arm of the study in which all subjects presented with the same constellation of severe respiratory symptoms but returned a negative PCR test for SAR-CoV-2. The following statement reveals what should be the most relevant finding in this comparative study.
“Although the overall proportion of SARS-CoV-2–negative youths who experienced severe outcomes did not differ from that among test-positive youths, among hospitalized children, those who were SARS-CoV-2 positive were more likely to experience severe outcomes.” (Our emphasis)
In hospitalised patients with the positive PCR test the risk of a severe outcome was elevated by 3.9% (95% CI, 1.1%-6.9%). As no information was provided about the specifics of the treatment provided to study participants on the basis of their PCR status, it is not possible to ascertain whether the treatment provided to PCR positive patients differed from that provided to the PCR negative patients in a meaningful way. Some of the treatments used in the management of Covid-19 have been shown to be be associated with unfavourable outcomes.

Main Stream Media Reporting

The above study has recently been cited by main-stream media sources to bolster public support for the vaccination roll out in children (5–12-year-old age). There seems to have been a recent emphasis placed upon the occurrence of severe disease in children due to Covid-19 (the clinical syndrome associated with infection with the SARS-CoV-2 infection). Stuff’s headlines scream:  “Covid-19: Study shows kids can get seriously ill, should be vaccinated – researcher”. The timing of this newly emerging narrative appears contrived due to it’s tight coupling with the vaccine roll-out in children.  Nowhere in the study is vaccination mentioned, contrary to Stuff’s headline. Not one month ago, Stuff drew attention to a child in New Zealand under 10, with this misleading headline:  “Coivd-19:  Child under 10 becomes youngest case to die”.  This child tested positive after death.  Surely in the middle of a pandemic, any child with respiratory symptoms would be immediately tested for Covid-19?  The case is still under investigation and until we know more, this unfortunate death cannot be said to be due to Covid-19.

The Omicron variant is strongly pushed in the media at present due to it high transmissibility, meaning it is easily passed from one person to the next. However, it behooves us all to take a deep breath and understand that Omicron is a mild disease with a trivial case fatality rate. Furthermore, if it is contracted, it may provide immunity against other variants.  This cannot be said for the C-19 injections which neither prevent infection nor spread it. Even worse, the Covid-19 injections may weaken your immune system and may cause severe side-effects.

We ask yet again, why the main-stream media is not looking at all the data. It is time to turn them off

What Kids Can Do

Keep healthy by visiting family and getting lots of hugs and laughs, as this helps to boost the immune system.  Eat well, exercise and get outside for some sun, without burning.  Not only will you have a better chance of not even noticing Omicron or any other variant, but you will be stronger and happier, for yourself, your family and your community.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 304 Average: 4.7]
The Diary of a Scientist in New Zealand

The Diary of a Scientist in New Zealand

The Diary of a Scientist in New Zealand

How the government, media and medical sectors are stuck down a cul-de-sac.

 

 

Musings from Dr Guy Hatchard, PhD.

Today I reviewed my 2021 diary and correspondence and had an aha moment. Up until September most of my exchanges and the press articles I read involved discussion and interpretation of the relative merits of published scientific papers. After that the official dialogue reported in the media subtly changed and started to assert that ‘science’ was on the side of vaccination without actually citing research papers—the merit of vaccination had become an accepted ‘fact’. In contrast after September the publishing of Covid-19 science papers picked up pace and they certainly weren’t supporting the government narrative. Scientifically speaking, the government narrative was becoming an embarrassment, but that did not in any way deter the media or the government and their advisors from deciding to rigidly enforce and support draconian vaccination mandates.

Sometime early in 2021, there must have been a NZ government decision to accept at face value data from Pfizer that the vaccine was 95% effective and completely safe. On this basis they launched a public advertising campaign emphasising its complete safety and effectiveness. Yet even in January before our vaccine rollout, studies were surfacing indicating that the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines dropped off rapidly. This was quantified as about 39% after six months. By the end of May Israeli scientists had found a risk of some degree of myocarditis in as many as 1 in 2,500 recipients, especially after the second Pfizer dose. These warning signs did not appear to have any impact on government policy or messaging.

As the year went on key studies carried a clearer message. A study in the European Journal of Epidemiology published on 30th September found incidence of COVID‐19 is unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. On October 13th a study in Viruses reported that the Covid spike protein inhibits cellular DNA repair in vitro. On October 25th, a study published in the Lancet of 1.6 million individuals in Sweden found that effectiveness of mRNA vaccines becomes undetectable after 7 months. On 8th November a study published in Circulation raised the alarm about increased markers of cardiac illness among the vaccinated. This was followed by comments from cardiac physicians that the incidence of cardiac illness was increasing alarmingly.

Despite high levels of vaccination, data from EU countries showed high levels of Covid infection continuing and even growing as the year progressed towards its end. This was certainly not the predicted outcome of vaccination programms. The one remaining ‘fact’ that justified vaccination mandates was the narrative that vaccination reduced hospitalisation and death. In mid December the figures from the UK Health Security Agency (Week 49 Vaccine Surveillance Report) showed that the proportion of vaccinated individuals dying from Covid in November (all ages) mirrored the proportion of the eligible population who were vaccinated (84% and 83% respectively) indicating an absence of net mortality benefit from vaccination. On Christmas Day, a study of the case histories of 42 million people in the UK was published by MedRxiv, this found that for under 40 males, the risk of developing myocarditis (cardiac inflammation) was greater following mRNA vaccination than it was after contracting Covid itself. Moreover the risk increased with each successive shot including the booster shot. On 22 December a Danish study was published which showed that the efficacy of the vaccine entered into negative territory after 90 days, in other words as the protective effect of mRNA vaccination wore off, it left recipients more vulnerable to Covid than the general population. The effect was largest for the Pfizer vaccine.

None of these newly published studies seem to have impacted government policies. Instead a measure of panic about the need for boosters has been projected by authorities around the world. To cap it all, despite there being no credible evidence, the scapegoating and persecuting of unvaccinated people has reached a crescendo. For example an article on January 1st 2022 in the Guardian written by Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University rails against the ‘misinformation’ being promulgated by the unvaccinated. She uses emotive phrases such as ‘alleged side effects’ of vaccination and denies that vaccination could change your DNA or ‘poison’ a person. Not a single study is cited by Prof. Sridhar in the whole article. Clearly there are serious side effects, numerous studies including some belated data from Pfizer itself have described these. Referring to these as poisoning is not prima facie a stretch. Is the professor aware of a study which came out at the end of 2020 showing that RNA sequences can and have been incorporated into our DNA?

Or is this perhaps a no go area for epidemiologists whose narrow field of interest is vaccination and now compulsory vaccination? In a show of professional entitlement, she bemoans the fact that her years of experience in infectious disease control is being ignored by a few people and wonders why the public does not offer the 100% unthinking support that her position should command whether it is based on science or not.

This is just one of an endless stream of articles, political pronouncements, and laws that scapegoat, punish and impoverish the unvaccinated. You need to dig a little deeper to find the source of this prejudice, because it certainly can’t be found in the published scientific narrative. There appear to be three main streams of thought that came together in 2021, all three of which are seeking forms of control, finance, and monopoly.

The first is the MEDICAL and PHARMACEUTICAL establishment with their magic bullet philosophy of manufactured drug-based approaches to health. Inherent is the idea that side effects are an ‘unfortunate’ but inevitable price to pay for health. More recently the use of biologic genetic medicine has been seen as the future of this sector, even though none of the promised breakthrough cures have come to fruition during the last 30 years. This sector wishes to gain a monopoly of healthcare, and potentially of the food sector.

The second is the TECHNOLOGY and MEDIA sector. This stream of thought carries within itself the necessity of constant innovation. Innovations are seen as the essential stepping stones to progress. Each innovation replaces previous technology. For example we go from vinyl, to CDs, to streaming. This sector is highly competitive. The media feeds off technology news; new inventions promise a better quality of life. This sector also ignores the side effects of technology. For example, educational attainment is declining as IT use in education increases. In this sector there are winners who take all, and the rest are losers.

The third sector is found in the machinery of GOVERNMENT. Governments wish to take control of every aspect of life, especially the content of education and the permissible methods of healthcare, but more particularly information. In 2021 I was invited to participate in a conference discussing a new Digital Strategy for Aotearoa (New Zealand). As the conference progressed, it became apparent that the government aim was to control internet content. In New Zealand the government already has absolute authority and accepts virtually no liability for mistakes. It now wants to be the sole voice we are allowed to tune into.

During the pandemic, these three sectors have found each other and their aims have merged. They clearly see mutual advantages. The fly in the ointment is the ‘past’—traditional and cultural values, religious sentiment, and natural approaches to health and well being. Thus an article in the Guardian on 31st December attacks people involved with the wellness industry in NZ, and suggests that when they become ‘reactive pro-vaxxers’ supporting the radical acceptance of new vaccination technology, the true meaning of wellness would be realised. In this article there is not a mention of adverse events resulting from vaccination nor any mention of the rapidly declining efficacy of vaccination. Nor any mention of the increasing scientific concern that Covid mRNA vaccination may be suppressing immune system function.

Essentially all three power houses of the pandemic have ended up in a cul de sac, and it is not clear to them how to get out unscathed. Public opinion has been so indoctrinated, inflamed, and coerced into believing that vaccination is the safe exit strategy, that any crack in this narrative would result in serious recriminations and consequences. On December 27th an assessment conducted in a large integrated health system in the USA found that the incidence of myopericarditis subsequent to mRNA vaccination was being underreported due to ineffective diagnostic procedures in hospitals.

We note that here in NZ a December 15 letter from Ministry of Health chiefs to regional health authorities for the first time struck a note of alarm that cases of myocarditis can become serious if left untreated.

An essential part of the vaccine narrative has been its absolute safety. Despite the BMJ publishing on November 2nd an expose of deficiencies and falsification during a Pfizer vaccine trial, despite the absurdly short vaccine trial periods (months instead of years), despite the reports of multiple deaths proximate to vaccination (127 official Medsafe notifications so far in NZ and five times that notified to voluntary groups), the public vaccine safety narrative has been relentlessly pushed by media, pharma, and government—an unholy alliance of propaganda.

The efforts to hide any risks from the public were an essential part of their strategy. From the start the Ministry of Health decided not to require mandatory reporting of adverse effects of vaccines. Perhaps they simply didn’t bother to think about it, or possibly they didn’t want to know about any disasters if they did happen. Instead they decided the largely voluntary system of CARM, which they knew had a record of only 5% of cases reported, was adequate to the task. The result has been that the true extent of adverse events following novel mRNA vaccination of 4 million Kiwis is still largely unknown.

Was this a conspiracy? Probably not, but it was a coming together of like minded people, who had a very clear vision of a biotechnological future—three classes of people who all shared a common vision. People who had been influenced by popular notions of evolution based solely on competition and survival of the fittest. The idea that the individual and society are somehow always in competition with Nature which they should seek to dominate, known as Social Darwinism—a philosophy that greatly influenced Hitler.

We now know the dominant driving force of evolution is actually found in cooperative systems—symbiosis involving mutually beneficial networks of genetic intelligence. Nature prefers ways in which system elements can work to mutual benefit including even for example within predator hierarchies such as that in Yellowstone National Park where the reintroduction of wolves restored the balance in the wider ecosystem. These networks rely on the sun, the land, the water, the seed. Perhaps this is why some studies published during 2021 showed greatly reduced hospitalisation if you follow a plant based diet, or avoided excess fatigue, or exercised regularly, or used traditional herbal supplements.

The great tragedy of modern competitive models of nature is the misuse and degradation of natural resources, resulting in problems of climate change, pollution, and scarcity. The long term stewardship of natural resources has been replaced by the political, medical, and information age imperatives of narrow economic interests whose benefits are not evenly distributed. A system that rigorously and self-righteously ignores its own failings.

In 2022 I shall be asking the authorities, show us your evidence. We have shown you published scientific evidence of risk and ineffectiveness. Where is your evidence for mandates? Where is your evidence for safety? Where is your evidence for effectiveness? Where are the statistics? Why have you not mandated reporting of adverse effects? Why are you still blaming the unvaccinated? Time to fess up with a respectable scientifically justified policy, not a public relations campaign laced with divisive prejudice. And yes please, do make reference to scientific papers rather than anonymous government experts.

 

Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He is an advocate of natural health care.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 373 Average: 4.8]