JAMA published study raise alarms “Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years”; 1 in 500 kids post jab need hospital
This study raises serious concern yet the researchers try to whitewash the findings. You decide based on the presented tables.
As pointed out by BV and SSmith of this group, I want to outline what was published in limitations so this would set the stage for your viewing:
“First, this study relies on retrospective self-reported data by parental recall, which may not directly reflect what a child had experienced and contains a risk of recall bias (ie, not recalling some non-life-threatening symptoms several months later). The low response rate of 41.1% is a potential source of bias, possibly because the generic survey invitation email could not contain details about the topic for data protection reasons.”
These points or limitations cannot be discounted.
However, let us go forward:
SOURCE:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797451
The research study was observational in design and included 7806 children (median age, 3 years [IQR, 2-4 years]; 51% male, and who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 91.4 (38.8) days since first Pfizer vaccination. The survey response rate was 41.1%. The study appeared to be run for 1 month? “Within the study period of April 14 to May 9, 2022”.
‘In the active-comparator analysis, the probability of any symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.43-1.84), local symptoms (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.38-2.05), musculoskeletal symptoms (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.32-4.94), dermatologic symptoms (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 10.7-4.45), or otolaryngologic symptoms (OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 1.50-27.09) were modestly elevated after BNT162b2 compared with non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.’
While researchers claimed that ‘the overall frequency of adverse events after vaccination with BNT162b2 was comparable with the frequency of adverse events after vaccination with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children younger than 5 years’, I have read the results differently. For example, see these tables:
Table 2 shows IMO that symptoms were elevated for ‘any symptoms’ e.g. 62% higher (OR 1.62), see 4th column from the right, pulmonary, neurologic, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, cardiovascular e.g. 36% higher, gastrointestinal etc. I agree that some are non-significant and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) span from California to China, but these are substantial differences.
Table 1 also lists serious adverse effects and we see no deaths and we know that Ioannidis reports that in persons 0-20 years, the risk of death is 0.0003% (children under 5 as in this study, will be basically ‘0’, statistical zero for death). (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1.full)
We see 4 serious cardiovascular and 4 serious pulmonary serious and 3 serious neurologic effects (2nd column form the left).
and my substack as to the reduced risk of death in children:
BOOM! Stanford’s John Ioannidis proves AGAIN what I, Risch, McCullough, Atlas, J Tucker, Tenenbaum, Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, Wolf, Oskoui knew, COVID was NOT deadly for vast majority, low IFR
Two years ago I wrote this in AIER (under Tucker and Eastman) with Risch and Tenenbaum and Dara and McCullough and Oskoui, working with Ioannidis and his data, listening, sharing, we knew the risk was near zero. For the younger, healthy, well, even middle-aged persons. No one ever said that this was not serious for the elderly and high risk who we call …
Read more
3 days ago · 135 likes · 49 comments · Dr. Paul Alexander
You decide if the author’s conclusion makes sense. Balance this on the fact that this was based on self-recall (parental reporting and not the child) so there is room for bias in the data. These are important and great points to consider (SSmith & BV).
The Daily Sceptic did a nice piece also, deserves mention.
