Should children get "vaccinated" for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19)? Not according to the Wall Street Journal's (WSJ) Allysia Finley.
An opinion piece she wrote echoes what Natural News is saying for quite some time now: that young people with healthy immune systems should not be shot up with dangerous and experimental pharmaceutical concoctions just because Big Pharma demands it.
Citing Florida's recent decision to not recommend Fauci Flu shots for children, Finley makes a strong argument for why the injections do not belong in the arms of little ones.
Abundant scientific evidence shows that the Wuhan Flu poses a nearly zero risk to young people. The shots, on the other hand, pose a substantial risk.
A recent paper published in The Lancet estimates that the infection fatality rate for children under age 18 is somewhere between 0.0023 percent and 0.0085 percent.
This means that 2.3 to 8.5 out of every 100,000 children who get infected will die, with the lowest rates being among those aged 5 to 11.
Between Oct. 3, 2020, and Oct. 2, 2021, according to the CDC, only 66 children aged 5-11 died after testing "positive" for COVID. This is the exact same number that died from suicide, which is exceedingly rare in this age group.
"By comparison, there were 969 deaths in this age group from unintentional injury and 207 from homicide in 2019," Finley writes.
Covid vaccine efficacy turns negative over time, putting children at greater risk
Another recent study out of New York State found that jabs do pretty much nothing to prevent hospitalization, which is already extremely low, to begin with.
Not only that, but the efficacy of the jabs wanes and turns negative over time. This is why many are now referring to the aftereffects of the injections as vaccine-induced AIDS, or VAIDS.
"This means vaccinated children were significantly more likely to catch COVID than the unvaccinated," Finley explains.
"One possible explanation is that the unvaccinated may have been more likely to have been previously infected, and natural immunity is more protective than vaccines."
This fact alone makes it both foolish and senseless to inject children for something that will not make them sick, but that exposure will produce lasting natural immunity. Why not just let nature run its course?
There is no profit to be made from nature, of course, which is why the establishment stands opposed to this approach. But there are healing and protection to be derived from it for those brave enough to take that route.
Finley further admits that Pfizer's vaccine trials for children were inadequate because too few children were included in them. This makes it impossible to identify rarer adverse events, which she says "could exceed the risks from the virus."
"Some 40% of children 5 to 11 reported systemic reactions after their second shot (e.g., fatigue, headache, fever)," she writes. "About 10% missed school, and 1% needed medical care."
For this reason and many others, Germany, Norway, and Sweden have all decided not to recommend the jabs for healthy children under age 12. The Danish Pediatric Society has urged its government to do the same.
"Vaccinating children is a great idea," wrote a commenter at the WSJ. "More doses = more money. Isn't that what this has always been about?"
"The idea that we should substitute a child's robust, healthy immune system with vaccinations for a harmless disease is idiotic," wrote another, pointing out what one would think is an obvious fact.
"Stop it. You'll ruin the narrative," said someone else. "Albert Bourla and his little friends at Pfizer have vaccines to sell and stock options to exercise."
More of the latest news about covid injections can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.