Proving The mRNA Shots Harm Children

Treated like animals by a veterinarian

May 22, 2023

Do you trust a Veterinarian with your children’s health?

Previously we provided statistical proof why genetically modified adenovirus shots (such as AstraZeneca) for SARS-CoV-2 kill children at a higher rate. We’ll now be re-using the starting statistical analysis to prove mRNA shots harm children.

Recap: Demonstrating Risks Have Always Outweighed Benefits

In July 2021, the BBC were forced to admit that only 25 children in 12 million in the UK (2 per million; 1 in 500,000) were declared to have died from SARS-CoV-2:

This of course ignores the major issues uncovered with PCR tests used to test for SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Let us go over the issues with mRNA shots.

mRNA Shots Have Not Been Proven To Reduce Transmissibility

Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Rob Roos got an official from Pfizer to admit, on public record, that the mRNA shots have not been tested to prevent transmissibility:

Rob Roos went on to publicly call this one of the greatest scandals of our time.

Not even so-called ‘fact-check’ sites have been able to dispute this. Instead, they try to gaslight and suggest that Pfizer never suggested it could stop transmissibility, and without evidence try to assert it ‘reduces infection’ (which would be stopping transmissibility):

The claim “Pfizer was always clear it did not test” is false, as not only has Pfizer, as of 2023 blabbed about “herd immunity” (a process where disease supposedly can’t spread if a herd is immune), even going so far as to tag COVID-19, despite knowing full well their shots don’t prevent transmissibility…

…But Pfizer also publicly and misleadingly claimed it was ‘95% effective’ in their press release:

‘Fullfact’ are so wrong about the claim it ‘reduced infection’, that if you visit the French version of Pfizer’s Canadian site, it has this disclaimer in French:

The relevant line in French:

Les vaccins n’offrent pas une protection totale chez les personnes qui les reçoivent et ne sont pas indiqués pour traiter l’infection ou en réduire les complications.

In English, it translates to (relevant part highlighted):

Pfizer’s own words contradict ‘fullfact’s’ unevidenced claim, where they explicitly state that it does not “treat or reduct complications”:

Vaccines do not provide full protection to people who receive them and are not indicated to treat or reduce complications.

Pressed Release

Before people get too enamoured with the figures which seems like trial data, this is a press release (which many people have falsely claimed is a ‘phase 3 trial’ — that’s a title, not a trial). It even states “Pfizer Press Release” at the top, that is to say, a fabrication, about how they have ‘concluded’ the Phase 3 study, not providing the data itself:

It’s worth noting the date of that publication was during the same time frame as the mRNA instability issues revealed in the EMA leaks, which the press release does not disclose and has not been discussed publicly since. This included evidence of fraud, harmful mRNA instability issues, and contamination with bacteria.

The lack of testing was so evident, that the BMJ (British Medical Journal) even publicly stated that Pfizer had withheld the data, asking multiple times things such as “Covid-19 vaccines: where are the data?”:

…and a full-blown editorial in 2022, where again the BMJ insisted: “Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now”, meaning it still hasn’t been released:

This means, not only did Pfizer not supply the evidence of ‘95% efficacy’ for public review (meaning approval was based on a press release, I.E. unevidenced), but there’s evidence contradicting ‘fullfact’s’ unevidenced claim it ‘reduces infection’.

Even November 2021 — long after the shot had been emergency use authorised and rolled out into bodies — the FDA were publicly admitting there was no evidence proving it stopped transmission (notice it names Pfizer-BioNTech’s shot explicitly):

The same page also admits they have no evidence it works against ‘asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection’, even a year later:

Why bring up asymptomatic cases? A higher number of children’s cases will be asymptomatic or mild. No evidence it prevents asymptomatic infection, no evidence it prevents transmissibility, evidence showing Pfizer disavowing reducing disease.

Because the FDA page made the pro-shot narrative look bad, the FDA have since deleted the page:

Then What Does It Do?

If it doesn’t reduce transmissibility, doesn’t reduce infection, and doesn’t stop asympatomic cases, I.E. it does absolutely nothing to prevent SARS-CoV-2, and ergo, does not mitigate any of the risks associated with SARS-CoV-2, then what does it do?

Well, Pfizer were forced to admit — buried, not mentioned by the FDA when they constantly parrot the “safe and effective” shots — in their ‘factsheets’ that the Pfizer shots cause myocardits and pericarditis:

This was a factsheet the FDA maliciously deleted to cover up evidence of crimes against children (archived copy can be found here):

The CDC however did not (at time of writing) delete the link referenced by Pfizer:

Pfizer conveniently omit specific, hard numbers of how many people per dose get myocarditis or pericarditis. Presumably as the figures look bad. Notice it does not claim it is ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’. It tries to downplay by suggesting some of those in ICU might see ‘resolution’; but frankly a shot should not be sending children to ICU to begin with, especially given the majority are asymptomatic.

Then There’s The Giant List Of Harms

The FDA were forced to disclose via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request a document that lists nine pages of condensed wall-to-wall text showing harms associated with the Pfizer shots (page 30 onwards).

When we say wall-to-wall, here’s one excerpt of part of a page (there are 9 pages):

Clearly then the FDA know the Pfizer shots cause harms. They also know that the Pfizer shots have no evidence preventing transmission, no evidence of reducing infection, no evidence of stopping asymptomatic infection, in-fact, no published evidence of raw data period, as seen with the BMJ.

Clearly Demonstrating Harms

Even though the shot is evidentially worthless and has no valid raw data proving safety, and the burden is on Pfizer to prove safety, we can go a step beyond the limited hangouts and forced admittance.

Are there any peer-reviewed studies and reports indicating harms with the Pfizer shot (also known as BNT162b2; BNT is short for ‘BioNTech’)?

The aanswer is yes. Here’s at least 43:

A handful of people will use ‘knuckledragger logic’, and divide the number of doses by the number of peer-reviewed reports to declare a false view of safety, but peer-reviewed reports are not counted as though statistics.

Each peer-reviewed report represents many months of a good number of professionals analysing and researching a selected few cases doing in-depth research, so the metric isn't quantity, but the seriousness and depth of the quality.

The difference between a regular army (general statistics) and Special Forces (peer-reviewed research). You wouldn’t say that because only a handful join Special Forces that the overall army is small. Special Forces are tip of the iceberg.

In this case, across the world, when healthcare professionals do an in-depth investigation, they find the Pfizer mRNA shots cause harm. This isn’t a single, one-off case report, but numerous.

Destroying The Fraudulent ‘Risk Versus Benefit’ Analysis

Quoting “Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting”, it confirms mRNA shots are associated with myocarditis, emphasis added:

Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2).

Remember how many children die from SARS-CoV-2? At most, 1 in every 500,000.

Well, the risk rate (that Pfizer failed to report) is specified in the above peer-reviewed paper:

The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons).

That’s a 1 in every 100,000 to 1 in every 20,000 risk of getting myocarditis from the shot. That’s worse than the risk from SARS-CoV-2 in terms of risk of death.

Most people will try to argue that myocarditis and pericarditis are not fatal, but that’s like arguing becoming amputated is okay because it’s not fatal.

Back in 2014, a study titled “Trends in myocarditis incidence, complications and mortality in Sweden from 2000 to 2014”, a study on mortality in myocarditis in Sweden found (emphasis added):

In all 8.1% died within 1 year, 0.9% (< 50 years) and 20.8% (≥ 50 years).

Assuming the 8% mortality rate holds true for vaccine induced myocarditis (it may be worse given secondary harms), it would mean the fatality rate is anywhere between 1 in 1,250,000 (for 1 in every 100,000) to 1 in 250,000 (for 1 in every 20,000).

This is strictly for myocarditis within the first year, and does not include later years, or any other harms the SARS-CoV-2 shots induce.

But What About Risk-Benefit?

The justification for causing this harm? The argument SARS-CoV-2 is somehow worse, which many a fraudulent hack will declare is a ‘risk-benefit analysis’ with no actual analysis performed besides quoting ‘models’ and figures pulled from thin air.

This always presumes the shot can never be improved and ignores the fact both aspects can change. The study “Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting” goes on to comment:

The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

But as clearly established earlier, Pfizer legally disavow any ability to reduce infection or symptoms with their shot, or even transmission.

This means what you get is a stacked risk. So, on top of the shot increasing your risk for myocarditis (this is a guaranteed risk if you take the shot; regardless of whether you would have gotten SARS-CoV-2), you also stack it with any risk you’d get from infection, given Pfizer deny any ability to stop you getting infected and deny any ability to reduce symptoms.

Worse, is the adverse symptomology only applies to non-asymptomatic cases, which as we’ve established, children mainly get asymptomatic and mild, meaning they won’t see myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2, therefore any supposed “benefit” is irrelevant.

Evidentally, we can see that the mRNA shots harm children, potentially doubling their risk of death from myocarditis from the shot alone. We can also infer it has no benefits for adults, either. If the shots are incapable of protection, then taking them involves nothing but risk, so any risk of harms also worsen adult outcomes as well.

If we can infer it offers zero protections to children and adults, and only brings risks, we can also infer the same when it comes to pregnancy.

The evidence the shots causes harms is so bad the FDA have purged both their Q&A and their Pfizer ‘factsheets’ in a desperate effort to hide evidence of harms. Once again, both are engaged in criminal behaviours.

Yet more evidence the poison shots kill.

Subscribe to get more content from The Daily Beagle.

Raise awareness!

And paid subscribers can leave a comment below:

The Daily Beagle