Criticizing The Science

On September 7, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study with troubling data. Before I get into the study, I want to quote Dr. F@uc!'s statement regarding new vaccines containing updated spike proteins. On September 11, a few days after the study was published, he said, "We don't have time to do a clinical trial because we need to get the vaccine out now." 1 It seems he is condoning giving an untested novel vaccine formulation to people, including children. Clinical trials are generally required with new pharmaceutical products so that the manufacturers can be sure they are safe.

The Science

In late November 2021, Dr. F@uc! said, "So it's easy to criticize, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science...I think when we look back at this, we're going to see what were we thinking, what was going on back then?" 2 It has been close to ten months since he made that statement, so let's see what is going on and what he was and is thinking. 

The Science Does Not Mind Skipping Steps

For one thing, as I previously stated, he is condoning skipping safety trials. Safety trials are usually done in a randomized control fashion, the pinnacle of scientific inquiry. So Dr. F@uc! (herein known as "The Science") is ok with skipping steps in producing pharmaceuticals. "The Science" does not mind skipping major scientific safety studies. 

The Science is Correct, is Fact-checked False, Then Ignores Itself When Proven Correct Again

Let's get into the recent NEJM paper. You can read it here or a lite version here. The study is a large observational study that looks at 887,193 children aged 5 to 11 years in North Carolina, of whom 273,157 (30.8%) received at least one dose of Pfizer vaccine between November 1, 2021, and June 3, 2022. The study includes 193,346 children who had Covid-19 infections reported between March 11, 2020, and June 3, 2022. The researchers compared the effectiveness of the vaccines to the effectiveness of previous Covid-19 infections. They also compared the effectiveness of the vaccines when given to children that have had Covid-19. 

 For background, it is well known that previous Covid-19 infections (and infections in general) confer good immunity. As a result, many experts believe that previously infected people don't need a vaccine. And, As you will see, the study shows that Covid-19 infections confer good immunity to future infections. Regarding the flu, "The Science" said in 2004, "The most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself." "The science" is inconsistent as well, it appears. That statement was "fact-checked" recently and taken down. "The Science" gets protected by fact checkers and FaceBook.

If the context ignores basic immunology, then it is out of context. If the context discusses the immunity gained from having had the infection previously, it was on target. If the goal is to hide the fact that you may not need the vaccine if you have been previously infected, then make it seem like “The Science” was out of context.

Hospitalization From Covid-19 According to the NEJM Study

Children usually get mild cases of Covid-19, so there are not many hospitalizations either way. The chart below on the left shows hospitalizations from Covid-19 in vaccinated children, and the one on the right shows hospitalizations in children with immunity from infections. Infection is superior to vaccination when looking at preventing hospitalizations from Covid-19. 

 So "The Science" can promote incorrect ideas. I guess "The Science" can also be "The Shoddy Science". I am trying to do the mental gymnastics. In 2004, "The Science" made a correct statement. Then, in 2021, the accurate information became false and fact-checked as wrong. Then real science shows it is unexpectedly accurate, so "The Science" ignores it. Is “The Science” trying to promote profits for big pharma?

Comparing Reinfection Rates in the Vaccinated to Children Previously Infected With Covid-19

The following graph below shows that getting infected gives immunity to children. It wanes over time but remains close to fifty percent over one year after infection. None of the children in this chart have been vaccinated.

Now let's look at what happened when children that had immunity from having been previously infected were vaccinated. The blue and red lines represent different strains of Omicron. After eight months after having the original Omicron variant, no immunity exists. However, keep in mind that in the graph above, children still had close to fifty percent immunity over one year later. 

So it appears that the vaccines are ruining the immunity achieved in children that have had Covid-19. Instead of 50% immunity after one year, they have 0% after eight months. Does "The Science" know the science?

No Immunity Versus Negative Immunity

The next one is even worse if the images above are not sad enough. The blue line represents previously infected children that were vaccinated. The red line represents just vaccinated children. As you can see, it takes about eighteen weeks for the vaccinated children to achieve zero immunity and about 20 weeks for the vaccinated children who had a case of Covid-19 to get there.

Here's where it gets unfortunate. Can you see the dotted line at zero in the image below? That represents no immunity. Once the red and blue lines dip below zero, the children have negative immunity. In other words, the vaccine makes it more likely that they will get sick with Covid-19. 

Why Stop at Twenty?

Here is one more visual from the study. The green, blue, red, and orange lines represent the different strains of Covid-19. The two recent strains don't fall off as quickly as the original two. But notice in the graphs below (and above) that the researchers cut off the bottom at negative 20%. I can't be sure because the data is not there but supposing those lines continue apace below -20%, we may have a real problem. -20% means that the children have a twenty percent increased chance of catching Covid. I sketched the green line out to June of 2022 and estimated that vaccinated children could have around a 90% greater chance of catching Covid-19 if the line continues on the same trajectory. I pray that the curve flattens and reverses.

Conclusion

"The Science" is retiring. Let's hope that the science starts functioning as it should after that. We should be allowed to call into question scientific ideas no matter which side the believer falls on. The foundation of progress requires cordial debate. Firm belief, tepid belief, doubt, skepticism, disbelief, and firm refutation should all be welcome.