In a little over 3 months since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 50,000 reports of adverse events, including over 2,200 deaths.

Currently, there are no vaccines authorized for children under 16 years of age–but the trials have begun, and the push is just around the corner to get your kids vaccinated. However, this is not science. This is not even common sense.

There is no rational or logical reason to give the COVID vaccine to children at all. Not even a little bit…

• Children are infected less
• Children do not spread to adults
• Children have less symptoms
• Children have near zero rate of severe illness or death
• Children who have natural infection contribute to herd immunity
• Vaccinating children may increase their susceptibility to infection
• Vaccine may be more dangerous to children than the virus

Children are infected less

There are several biological reasons why children have a reduced ability to contract the SARS coronavirus. One of these reasons has to do with an enzyme called ACE2. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (or ACE2 for short) is the receptor that the SARS coronavirus binds to in order to infect its host.

Children have the least number of ACE2 receptors compared to all other age groups. According to this study:

“Among a cohort of 305 patients aged 4 to 60 years, older children (10-17 years old; n = 185), young adults (18-24 years old; n = 46), and adults (≥25 years old; n = 29) all had higher expression of ACE2 in the nasal epithelium compared with younger children (4-9 years old; n = 45), and ACE2 expression was higher with each subsequent age group after adjusting for sex and asthma.”

Another reason children are infected less, is they are much less likely to be vitamin D deficient, which is a major risk factor for all infections in general, and COVID-19 in particular.

A study done in Turkey found that over 93% of patients in the severe COVID-19 ward were vitamin D insufficient.

This study in Spain found that people hospitalized for COVID-19 were nearly twice as likely to be vitamin D deficient as controls:

“Vitamin D deficiency was found in 82.2% of COVID-19 cases and 47.2% of population-based controls.”

The elderly, and the obese–two groups at risk for severe disease–are more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency because advancing age and body fat make it more difficult to synthesize the fat soluble hormone which we call vitamin D.

This may be why less than 10% of total infections have occurred in children ages 5-17 years of age. Among the first 149,082 US cases, around 1.7% of the cases were in children under 18 years.

A targeted screening approach in Iceland found SARS-CoV-2 in 6.7% of children younger than 10 years old (n = 564) compared with in 13.7% of people aged 10 years or older (n = 8635).

Many countries, such as Sweden and Finland, and even the US, have mandatory vitamin D fortification of their foods (often milk and dairy) because they have reduced sun exposure during the winter months. In contrast, nursing homes are rife with vitamin D deficiency all over the world, and this group does make up more than 40% of COVID-19 deaths.

To learn more about vitamin D, watch the video at the end of this article.

And no, there are not variants that are more infectious or dangerous for children. This Lancet article even acknowledges the media’s role in the public’s confusion over this:

“Media reports of increases in admissions to hospital and more serious illness in children and young people have resulted in public confusion and implicated the B.1.1.7 variant as a more pathogenic infection within this group. This uncertainty has necessitated a public statement from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.”

“Importantly, we have found no evidence of more severe disease having occurred in children and young people during the second wave, suggesting that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant does not result in an appreciably different clinical course to the original strain. These findings are in keeping with early national data. Severe acute respiratory COVID-19 remains an uncommon occurrence in children and young people.”

Children do not spread covid to adults

A 40,000-person study found that children under 15 were about half as likely as adults to be infected, and only half as likely as adults to transmit the virus to others.

In fact, a study of a half a million people in India found that a very small minority of people are responsible for spreading the virus:

“The researchers found that 71% of infected individuals did not infect any of their contacts, while a mere 8% of infected individuals accounted for 60% of new infections.”

“The researchers found that the chances of a person with coronavirus, regardless of their age, passing it on to a close contact ranged from 2.6% in the community to 9% in the household.”

Children have less symptoms

Notwithstanding all the issues with the PCR tests, and the high probability of false positives based on labs using higher than normal cycle threshold counts, more than one-third of children who tested positive for SARS-Cov-2 were asymptomatic.

And according to a mass screening program performed in Wuhan, China on 10 million people between the ages of 10 and 89, the researchers found only 300 asymptomatic cases and none of them were infectious:

“No “viable virus” in cultures from asymptomatic samples.”

“The asymptomatic positive rate was lowest in participants aged under 17 and highest in those over 60. Further swab testing of 1174 close contacts of the 300 asymptomatic positive cases were all negative.”

The 300 asymptomatic cases discovered in the screening program did not pass the virus on to any close contacts.

What is the deal with PCR? When the World Health Organization released their new guidelines for PCR testing for COVID-19 on January 13, 2021, they wrote:

The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

Meaning a lower Ct detects actual viral infection, whereas a higher Ct may pick up a past infection, or a piece of rna or dna that means nothing.

Immediately after this Jan. 13th announcement, cases all over the nation began falling quite rapidly, suggesting that many positive cases prior may have been in error based on faulty PCR guidance and higher CT cycles.

Children have near zero rate of severe illness or death

Children are less likely to develop severe illness or die from COVID-19 than every other age group. In fact, children are used as the reference group for all other age groups.

According to the CDC, a child between the ages of 5-17 years old is 8700 times less likely to die with a COVID diagnosis than a person over 85 years old.

If children are:

• not at risk for severe COVID themselves
• they don’t transmit virus
• they don’t catch virus as often
• WHY WOULD WE VACCINATE THEM??

It’s important to remember there are many more deaths in the elderly in general, compared to the pediatric population.

For example, as of March 31, 2021, there were 246 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the group 0-17 years (for 2020/2021), and 38,993 deaths from all causes.

In people over 85, there were 164,182 deaths attributed to COVID-19, and 1,226,820 deaths from all causes.

A person 85 years and over is 31 times more likely to die than a person who is 0-17 years of age. That is just a fact of life. Children are at the beginning of their life, while the elderly are at the last chapter. This is one more reason we should not give them an experimental injection that may impact their future in ways we cannot know or predict.

Sweden, a nation famous for not locking down, not mandating masks, and not closing schools wanted to know how children were affected by COVID. The study analyzed:

“The number of deaths from any cause among the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age was 65 during the pre–Covid-19 period of November 2019 through February 2020 and 69 during 4 months of exposure to Covid-19 (March through June 2020) (see the Supplementary Appendix). From March through June 2020, a total of 15 children with Covid-19 (including those with MIS-C) were admitted to an ICU (0.77 per 100,000 children in this age group) (Table 1), 4 of whom were 1 to 6 years of age (0.54 per 100,000) and 11 of whom were 7 to 16 years of age (0.90 per 100,000). Four of the children had an underlying chronic coexisting condition (cancer in 2, chronic kidney disease in 1, and hematologic disease in 1). No child with Covid-19 died.”

Throughout all this, I keep wondering…where is all the concern or outrage over the 1,115 children under 14 who died of malignant neoplasms (data from 2019 but these are annual numbers!) in the United States? Or the 546 children who died of intentional self-harm?  There were 1,360 children 14 and under who died in transport accidents. There were 152 children who died of asthma. You know what causes asthma?? Where is the outrage?? We can reduce rates of asthma by postponing vaccination.

Children who have natural infection contribute to herd immunity

When someone acquires natural infection they develop an immunity that is more robust than vaccine acquired immunity. This is because a virus is covered in different proteins. SARS-CoV-2 has at least 29 proteins. But the vaccines only target one: the S protein.

This makes it very easy for an intelligent little virus to simply mutate the one protein, the S protein.

Natural infection has already shown that it offers protection against SARS-Cov-2 variants. And this study confirmed people still have sufficient immunity 8 months after infection.

The vaccines have shown the complete opposite picture! Not even talking about all the breakthrough cases. So far, all variants are emerging in the exact locations where the clinical trials all took place (UK, South Africa, Brazil, California = all clinical trial locations).

Vaccination drives mutation. This is a very big problem for herd immunity, and why it is much better to have naturally acquired immunity, if you truly want to protect the most vulnerable, and pass along beneficial antibodies to nurslings.

According to this study:

“Importantly the duration of protection acquired through a vaccine may be considerably shorter than that provided through a natural infection, as appears to be the case for pertussis.”

Vaccines and herd immunity are kind of an oxymoron. Because herd immunity depends on lasting and adaptive immunity, and vaccines promise neither.

This research paper sums up the issue with having a strong, fixed response to one protein:

“Because of the small number of antigens (3-5 in DTaP vaccines vs >3000 in DTwP vaccines), linked-epitope suppression occurs. Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.”

Vaccinating children may increase their susceptibility to infection

Vaccination increases susceptibility to infection in several different ways. Immunologists know this.

For one, because vaccination is less efficient at eliciting immunity than natural infection due to narrowly targeting one or two surface proteins, a person vaccinated in this way may be more susceptible to all variants, thus increasing susceptibility to infections.

The pertussis vaccine is a good example, because as I mentioned above, when you narrowly target one or two proteins of a bacteria, you simply drive mutation. The DTaP vaccine targets the pertactin protein on the surface of the bacteria. In response to this, the bacteria b. pertussis is mutating to be pertactin-deficient. This renders the vaccine ineffective at preventing transmission and disease.

This is why we see children who were primed with the acellular DTaP vaccine have a higher susceptibility to pertussis infections later in life. And why we see outbreaks in fully vaccinated populations.

In 2019, 43.3% of pertussis cases in children under the age of 6 years had received 1-4 doses of the DTaP vaccine–and 38% had completed the primary 3-dose DTaP series and still got pertussis.

Another way vaccines increase susceptibility to infections is something called “negative phase.”

Negative Phase is a medical term:

“a phase of lowered resistance that may follow the injection of foreign antigen in active immunization.”

It is an increased susceptibility to infection following vaccination, and it’s observed after all vaccines. It was identified nearly 100 years ago (“The ‘Negative Phase’ in Prophylaxis By Inoculation of Vaccines”, 1932) but continues to happen to this day, though it receives little attention.

For example, influenza vaccination increases risk for infections: (“Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine“, 2012).

After one dose of the COVID vaccine, this Danish study found that both nursing home residents AND health care workers were at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to unvaccinated.

See this table below. The period 0-14 days is the “negative phase”:

And then there’s also non-specific effects of vaccination. For example, Peter Aaby and his team found that:

“Non-live vaccines (such as DTP vaccine, the pentavalent vaccine for DTP, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated polio vaccine, single HBV vaccine, the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine, and the H1N1 influenza vaccine) seem to increase susceptibility to vaccine-unrelated infections, particularly in females.

In epidemiological studies, the negative effects seem to be more pronounced than the beneficial effects, with the net effect being increased overall mortality for females.”

Vaccine may be more dangerous to children than the virus

What is so troubling is giving a vaccine that may have more risk to the person, than the actual virus. And this is what we are doing when we suggest vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2, who are at the lowest risk of all.

According to the CDC: “COVID-19 death rates were lowest among children aged 1–4 years (0.2) and 5–14 years (0.2) and highest among those aged ≥85 years (1,797.8).” This rate is per 100,000.

We currently have no idea how mRNA vaccines will impact children in the future, but all non-live vaccines increase a child’s mortality overall and specifically much higher for females, according to Peter Aaby’s findings.

There could be implications for fertility, increased incidences in autoimmunity, cancer, or seizure disorders. None of the vaccines have even been evaluated for their ability to impair fertility or cause cancer. So we will always be in the dark. When it comes to children, we should be extra cautious, we should not cut corners.

We would be trading a very low mortality rate, for a potentially much higher one. Only time will tell this one.

Watch this video of Dr. Ryan Cole discussing the role of Vitamin D on the immune system and its relation to COVID-19.

Seriously, watch it right now.