Alex Berenson just pushed out an article that demonstrates "negative vaccine efficacy" for children in New York under 12 (Dorabawila et al, 2022).
First, for the purpose of this article, I will assume that children in New York have no particular quality, such as greater familiarity with the smell of pee on sidewalks, that renders them more or less susceptible to COVID-19 or omicron in particular. And omicron is the dominant SARS-CoV during the time of this data collection.
Since I haven't looked at the data under a microscope, and public health officials aren't keen to open up any database they rely on (let alone prove it exists…"Pandemic of the unvaccinated!"), I cannot say for sure if there are any biases, such as the reporting lag noted by Professor Norman Fenton, I still hold as possible that the experimental quasi-vaccines have zero efficacy combined with some dangerous ingredients that otherwise cause harm. But my needle of belief does favor the hypothesis that the experimental COVID-19 quasi-vaccines are weakening the immune system.
I would like to offer another interpretation of the data that is consistent with the Omicron Hypothesis (or some subset of the hypotheses): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 for those who wish to review.
We have already seen "negative vaccine efficacy" with respect to omicron in adults, which is to say that I doubt that children are the primary variable. However, children are a particularly interesting cohort to study, just as nations that had not seen much or any COVID-19 outbreak were particularly helpful in assessment of vaccine-induced mortality. We get a better chance at isolating the variable.
Given the data, and without further study, I see several possibilities (do not take the order presented as an order of belief…my thinking time is currently devoted to a lager project):
The vaccines "paint the target" for omicron. This is consistent with a great deal of data talked about in previous articles on the Omicron Hypothesis where I talk about this idea in a little more detail.
There is a bias toward healthy people getting vaccinated, or testing biases push infection curve apart, so outbreaks are lagged (I have seen other data, as in the UK, where that appeared to be a possibility). Without knowing the size of such a bias, we cannot say whether the final result is positive/zero/negative efficacy.
While I do suspect that some children die due to the experimental quasi-vaccines, and that induces survivorship bias into a lot of results, such bias should be far smaller in children, so I would think other biases would dominate.
It is hard to have an opinion after my (any) superficial look at this data (I just don't have the time) stronger than, "I don't know, but…" (it's okay not to have a firm conclusion) "...it certainly doesn't look good for the Vaccine Partisan claim of this-is-so-effective-we-need-to-hide-our-data-for-55-years."
Blame it on omicron if you like, but I've moved gradually toward the position that this "waning efficacy" that we're seeing on a several week timescale is more condensed because there is less room for bias to hide among actual illness in the youngest demographics. I still think that "waning efficacy" is really just "waning bias", and this data does nothing to persuade me otherwise.
Why is This an Omicron Hypothesis Article?
Scientifically speaking, this is an important question. I labeled this "Omicron Hypothesis" because I wanted to discuss Berenson's (once again oversimplified) statistical take with respect to multiple hypotheses at once for the purpose of reminding people how to match information and data with all available hypotheses. This is not strong evidence for any one hypothesis, aside from the one that says that the vaccines have no substantial efficacy in kids.
Then again, it's unclear whether "kids" is even an appropriate qualifier.
I truly feel for the parents who lined up their kids for this, especially those who's children were harmed and who the medical establishment has gaslighted them like they do not exist or are mentally ill. There truly is an increasing avalanche of bad news around this, and I am ever more convinced the government provoked Russia into the Ukraine in part to distract from that.
That said I subscribed to Berenson, just because he is so reviled by the medical establishment. But I was suspicious of him right off, not for his Covid info, but something about his demeanor, and then he slandered Dr Malone on Fox News, then finding out he has some sort of pathological vendetta against cannabis, and now that he has acted like the establishment Narrative around Ukraine is some sort of Absolute Truth.
From Alex's article:
> The mRNA jabs provide some protection for the first two weeks of “full vaccination.” But it declines rapidly, turns negative by the fifth week, and more sharply negative in the sixth
During the Delta wave, Didier Raoult commented on the fact that adults were more likely to get covid within the first week, after getting their first shot.
It takes at least 2 weeks for a person to be fully immunized.... we were told, so we could happily ignore this 2 week period as it was assumed it could not be worse than being unvaccinated.
It so happens that is a really, REALLY, bad assumption.
What does "fully-vaccinated" mean?
Why is it so hard to get clean, transparent, and well categorized data?
I wish Alex would use his platform to make this more widely known: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cJnzRZRLlg (This video shows the same is happening with Omicron after people take their booster shot.)