HKMk23
Since Feb 17, 2005

## Vaccinate Kids Ages 5-11? WHAT??

As of November 10th, 2,079,785 total COVID-19 cases among children 5-11 have resulted in 190 deaths.
Doing the math: 100 x (1 - (190 / 2,079,785)) = 99.991% survival rate in this age group, or 9 deaths per 100,000 cases.

See the raw CDC data, here:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

[Scroll down, to "Cases by Age Group" and pick the "Show table" button. Ditto for "Deaths by Age Group"]

OK. But it's still 9 out of 100,000; how many of these deaths can we prevent by vaccination??
Wrong question! It's not how many COVID deaths we can prevent; it's what it will cost the kids to prevent those COVID deaths; it's a Risk/Benefit analysis, and it turns out, it's not so great for the kids.
The statistic involved is known as the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV), and it's how many vaccinations have to be given in order to prevent ONE death.

The CDC data covers approximately 19 months, so 190 deaths/19 months = 10 deaths/month in this 5-11 age group.
FDA modeling shows that effectiveness of the Pfizer shot trails off at about 6 months, so we need to limit our sample to the number of deaths per six months, or 60.

On page 32 of this FDA document, we find the Benefit/Risk assessment for children 5-11.

We see the FDA model "assumes vaccine efficacy of ... 80% against ... hospitalization... for age 20+ ..." so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's 80% effective in the 5-11 age group, as well. At 80% effectiveness, of the 60 unvaccinated deaths in 6 months, math says we prevent 48 if we fully-vaccinate all 28,384,878 children 5-11 years old.

The NNTV, then is (28,384,878 / 48) or 591,352 except that this is a two-dose treatment, so double that: 1,182,704.

THAT is how many injections it takes to prevent ONE COVID death in children 5-11 in any given 6-month period.

Given that, what risks do 5-11 year-olds face?

Well, there's no data for this age group, but children 12-15 have had vaccine access since May 10th -- about 6-months, or the same time period in our NNTV calculation, so we'll use the 6-17 age group (12-17, actually) since that's the next group up, and we'll look at data since May 2021 when it became available to kids 12 and up.

VAERS reports 41 deaths among persons 6-17 (we know that's really kids 12-17) since May 2021.

But analysis of VAERS data by Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford indicates that the VAERS Under-Reporting Factor (URF) is 41.

Those 41 deaths may be more like 1,681 fatal COVID vaccine side effects among kids 12-17 since May 10th, 2021.
What does this mean for us, seeking to save 48 lives in the 5-11 age group? How many fatal side effects will we see in this group?

We honestly don't know, but they will have to do EXCEPTIONALLY better than their older brothers and sisters to make it worthwhile.
EVEN IF the VAERS reporting were 100% accurate, and only 41 kids 12-17 had died from COVID vaccine injury...
And EVEN IF the 5-11 age group endures equally well...
That's still 41 fatalities to try to save 48, meaning that -- ultimately -- we vaccinate 28.4 million to save 7.

And that's the BEST CASE Scenario, because other VAERS analyses suggest even higher URF numbers; as high as 100, and even a VAERS URF of 41 would say we lose over 1600 trying to save 48.

### IT'S NOT WORTH IT!

REFERENCES

What is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent a single COVID-19 fatality in kids 5 to 11 based on the Pfizer EUA application?
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/what-is-the-number-needed-to-vaccinate

Pfizer is now officially asking to vaccinate kids 5-11

The science behind why kids should not get (and don’t need) the COVID shot
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-science-behind-why-kids-should-not-get-and-dont-need-the-covid-shot/

More on Original Antigenic Sin and the Folly of Our Universal Vaccination Campaign
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/more-on-original-antigenic-sin-and

Harvard epidemiologist dismantles CDC study attacking COVID natural immunity
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/harvard-epidemiologist-dismantles-cdc-study-attacking-covid-natural-immunity/

122 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted

## IF IT WORKS SO WELL...

If it works so well, and you've already got it; what's it to you if I don't get it since you're protected?

But if it's not protecting you that well, why should I go get what's only kinda working for you?

What do either of us stand to gain if I get the same mediocre product?

You and I are BOTH only somewhat at risk, at this point; my unvaxxed self could get COVID and maybe die, and your vaxxed self could ALSO get COVID and still die.

Your risk doesn't decrease if I get it, because it won't prevent me being a carrier.

In fact, your risk INCREASES if I get it, because the vaxxed are BETTER carriers.

My risk doesn't decrease if I get it, because the increase in protection is only nominal, but being vaxxed permits me a greater level of exposure to other vaxxed people, who are better carriers of the virus, which elevates my risk of becoming a breakthrough case.

In fact, my risk INCREASES if I get it, because the elevated risk of becoming a breakthrough case is accompanied by a list of side effects of unknown number, timing, and severity; I don't know what might happen, or when, or how bad it might be.

At this point, it kinda just seems to me that you need me to go get this thing so you can feel validated in what you are increasingly realizing was your foolish reaction to government propaganda and the social pressure exerted by the "American Idle"; so you can have my company on your walk down the primrose path, because leaping into the pitch black unknown is nicer with a big group.

Like Jonestown.

## The Human Rights Angle

Here's a bit of a rights toolkit I'm working on. It's a work-in-progress, so contributions are welcome:

An Open Letter to the NSW Premier and Minister for Health and Medical Research, Stephen McKay
EXCERPTED

"By far the most disturbing aspect is the disregard for the foundational ethics of the medical profession, the necessity of individual informed consent for any medical treatment or prophylactic measures, and the now mandatory requirement for certain citizens...to participate..."

"In accordance with ethics of the medical profession, any decision regarding vaccination - and certainly when this is in the context of medical experimentation - cannot be made by anyone other than the patient concerned. Every patient must be accorded the necessary freedom to make their own decision without coercion and with full disclosure of the risks as well as benefits of any proposed treatment and as well as the alternative treatments available.

These ethical principles are foundational to the practice of medicine and have been reflected throughout the history of the profession in various forms from the “premium non nocere” (“first do no harm”) of the ancient oath of Hippocrates, to the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of 2005.

In particular, I would draw the Minister’s attention to Article 6 - Consent in the latter document ..."

Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
[UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights]

In the spring of 1984, the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists (AAICJ) initiated a colloquium of 31 distinguished experts in International law at Siracusa, Italy to examine the conditions and grounds for permissible limitations and derogations from certain rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), because governments had been employing illegal and unwarranted Declaration of Martial Law or State of Emergency as mechanisms having applicable provision in the Covenant to limit and derogate from certain rights. The colloquium yielded a set of principles known as the Siracusa Principles (the Principles). These Principles reflect the present state of international law.

With respect to the ongoing and varying societal limitations in force as the world grapples with COVID, and in light of the Biden Administration's recent imposition of a far-reaching "vaccine mandate," especially as that now compels persons of faith to explicitly secure their protected human right of Religious Liberty, I draw your attention to the following finding set forth in the Principles:

SECTION II. Derogations in a Public Emergency
...
D. Non-Derogable Rights

58. No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent*; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.
...
63. The provisions of the Covenant allowing for certain derogations in a public emergency are to be interpreted restrictively.
[Ref. The Siracusa Principles]

The original language in the Covenant supporting these findings is as follows:

PART II
...
Article 4

1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed,...

2. No derogation from articles 6 , 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
...

PART III
...
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
...
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
[Ref.: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]

Since these specific rights shall not be derogated, examination of the specific, applicable portions of the language is in order:

From Article 7: "No one shall be subject to...degrading treatment or punishment."

To have the Federal Government say to an individual, "You will violate your religious convictions or be relieved of your position of employment," which manifestly jeopardizes the household economy of the individual, and cascades to innumerable derivative psychological, economic, and relational harms -- THAT absolutely rises to the level of "degrading treatment or punishment" and it is prohibited.

Also from Article 7: "...no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation."

Recent FDA Certification of one particular genetic therapeutic preparation is limited in applicability, overly hasty in issuance, lacking in respect to necessary criteria typical to such Certification, and therefore questionable in scientific and medical validity; the aforementioned deficiencies evidencing most clearly that the rushed Certification is mostly political in nature. More broadly, though, all of the various injections deployed for use against COVID19 lack the typically necessary long-term trials designed to prove both effectiveness and safety. Manifestly, therefore, everyone in the world has become a participant in a global clinical trial of new pharmaceutical products heretofore unavailable, and having no prior track record. Against the all-encompassing backdrop of this inescapable reality, an FDA Certification that technically removes from one or more of these products the legal "experimental" classification scarcely qualifies even as a metaphorical fig leaf. Clearly the use of these various injections remains a worldwide medical experiment, with clinical trial data continuing to be gathered, and the demand that an individual must be subjected to this experiment or face grievous potential personal economic losses crushes free consent, and it is prohibited.

From Article 18: "1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have...a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom...in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

The freedom to have a religion of one's choice is meaningless apart from the freedom to observe and practice that religion. The practice of any religion that esteems unborn humans as living human persons proscribes absolutely every possible transgression against them, and proscribes absolutely every possible desecration of their bodies should any event result in their decease. This includes, without limitation, the harvest or use of any bodily tissues from such deceased persons for any purpose other than autopsy, lab work, or other immediate medical investigation necessary to a determination of cause of death. All of the genetic therapeutic formulations thus far available to combat COVID-19, at some point in their development or manufacture, employ cultured human cells descended from tissue obtained through the desecration of the bodies of human persons willfully terminated in utero. Because adherents to religions that esteem the unborn as human persons are bound by religious observance and practice to refuse any product produced in this manner, the demand that they consent to accept such products is hostile to their freedom to observe and practice their religion, and it is prohibited to so demand.

"2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice."

No person adhering to a religion that esteems unborn humans as living persons may accept any substance that at any point in its development or production employed cultured human cells descended from tissues originally obtained from persons willfully terminated in utero. Coercion to do otherwise impairs the individual's freedom to observe or practice such a religion, which, therefore also impairs the freedom to even have such a religion, and it is prohibited.

"3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Statistical data available at this date do not establish that any limitations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs are at all necessary to "protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." For further guidance I direct your attention, again, to the Principles:

SECTION II. Derogations in a Public Emergency
...
D. Non-Derogable Rights
...
63. The provisions of the Covenant allowing for certain derogations in a public emergency are to be interpreted restrictively.

A restrictive interpretation of Article 18(3) might permit derogation in the face of a far more deadly threat; a resurgence of smallpox, with it's 30% death rate, would stand as a credible example. No restrictive interpretation of Article 18(3) is credibly permissive of derogation in the face of COVID-19; nothing with an across-the-board survival rate in fractions of 1% credibly supersedes any person's access to their internationally recognized human rights of freedom of religion and conscience.

REF: An Open Letter to the NSW Premier and Minister for Health and Medical Research, Stephen McKay