Discover more from Peter’s Newsletter
Texas A&M survey of parents reveals there is more work to do to inform parents of the risks of C19 mRNA injections and of the issues around RSV and flu vaccines
To get an indication of the likely survey bias, here is the opening statement from the Abstract.
“Vaccine hesitancy is a substantial public health threat.”
Of course, the statement should have read “Vaccines are a substantial public health threat.” But there you go.
“We used a national survey to query parents about their intention to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, influenza, and RSV in the fall and winter 2023-2024.
We found that about 40% of parents intended to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, 63% against influenza, and 71% against RSV.”
The study involved 5,035 parents of children younger than 18 years who were surveyed on September 27 and 28, 2023.
I guesstimate that there are around 72 million Americans under the age of 18. The latest numbers from the CDC here: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Vaccinations in the US indicate (if you subtract the over 18 year olds from the totals) that
· 32 million under 18’s have taken one dose = 44%
· 26.3 million under 18’s completed an initial course = 37%
· 3.5 million only under 18’s took the bivalent booster = 5%
So an uptake of 40% represent a massive leap compared to those that rook a bivalent booster.
This might indicate success in the change to the marketing narrative that the C19 mRNA injections are not “boosters” and instead are to be viewed just like an annual flu shot.
Imagine if people had been told that before they too the injections starting 2021 “take this one, the next one, then the booster this year, then one every year for life”.
The cumulative risks of taking the flu shots – on rates of autism, ADHD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s et al seem to be falling on deaf ears. People should realise by now that there are adjuvants in flu doses that are potentially harmful AND that the flu vaccines DO NOT reduce flu cases.
RSV intentions are equally odd. Presumably parents have not been made aware of what might be the usual shenanigans of Pfizer in clinical trials – here’s one around pregnant women and RSV:
“A debate has broken out over whether Pfizer should have told pregnant women participating in its trial of maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination that a trial of a similar vaccine was halted over a safety signal around preterm birth.”
Fraudsters and cheaters have to fraudster and cheat, right?
The study linked below makes interpretation difficult for the lay person – like me! Why not just survey the total number of RSV cases amongst babies – or maybe that’s beyond the capability of national health systems.
“RSV-associated acute respiratory infection causes substantial morbidity, leading to the hospitalisation of one in every 56 healthy term-born infants in high-income settings.”
We know there are a couple of recently authorised “vaccines”, so on the face of it, the percentage efficacy times can be applied to the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one infection and any adverse events for the 55 babies who are not at risk from RSV!
Why just “high income settings”? What does that mean? Expensive private hospitals? Did they just extract data for these settings from a database with “all income settings”?
No hint of numbers here, but a few charts:
The CDC offers the same charts for each US State here:
Maybe I am mistaken, but aren’t the vast majority of RSV cases resolved with no serious or fatal outcomes? So, vaccinating every healthy child for a recoverable condition is just a money making boondoggle for big pharma?
Please subscribe or make a donation via Ko-fi – any amount from 3 bucks upwards. Don’t worry and God Bless, if you can’t or don’t want to. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 Ko-fi donation a week!