Vaccine Makers Should Waive Their Immunity Rights in Vaccinating Children

Vaccine Makers Should Waive Their Immunity Rights in Vaccinating Children
A nurse fills up a syringe with a COVID-19 vaccine at a senior center in San Antonio, Texas, on March 29, 2021. (Sergio Flores/Getty Images)
Parvez Dara
Paul E. Alexander
Howard Tenenbaum
The pandemic is 16 months old and it has cornered the market of thoughts, ideas, and innovations. But what caught our attention recently is the statement from the governor of New Jersey, who said that everyone getting the vaccine in May would get a free beer.

On its face it seems innocuous and silly, but upon deeper introspection, the policy is repugnant and stands in direct opposition to the Nuremberg laws governing medical experimentation.

What’s more disturbing is the call by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Dr. Anthony Fauci to vaccinate children as young as 6 months old. If promulgated, we suggest that the vaccine makers should be held responsible for any harms accrued by the children in the future.

These vaccines are approved as emergency use authorization and haven’t gone through the rigors of a biologic licensing application. Therefore, the vaccine makers must waive immunity in immunizing children. We believe that the injection of children who have virtually no risk of death from COVID-19 constitutes unethical behavior.

The fearmongering by magnifying the “cases”—by 80 to 90 percent, according to some estimates—through the “thermal cycle threshold” (Ct) in the rT-PCR test for COVID-19 remains a problem. The sweet spot for the amplification was a Ct of 24, but the laboratories were using a Ct of 40 to 45 and thus calling any fragments and “viral dust” of any non-infectious coronavirus RNA as being positive for SARS-CoV-2, which is simply wrong.
Certainly, children don’t drive infections or the pandemic, and are, in fact, natural buffers or shields against a greater spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Operation Warp Speed

Operation Warp Speed led to the development of several vaccination candidates, based largely on gene therapy models. The vaccines were a way out of the pandemic. Interestingly, some suggest that the vaccines were on the table for several years waiting to be used. The operation was put at warp speed for the production and delivery of the vaccines to the populace. The operation seems to have warped into vaccinating all of humanity, including children, where we find minimal to no risk from the infection and the potential for great harm.
Emerging Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data suggest that the risks associated with the current mRNA vaccine, while still vanishingly small, are 20-fold higher for adverse events and 200-fold higher for mortality as compared to influenza vaccinations, based on rough calculations.
What makes the new mRNA vaccines unique? The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were developed to target solely the SARS CoV-2 spike protein (S protein). This protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor on the surface of epithelial cells, endothelial cells, lung tissue cells, and others thereby allowing the virus to insert its RNA into them. This process is aided by a cellular protein called furin. Viruses create multiple copies of themselves by hijacking infected cells’ protein synthesis and RNA replication “machinery,” allowing for viral replication.

CDC VAERS Reported Harms

As might be inferred from the above, there are now increasingly notable signals of unanticipated harms, albeit small numbers, being caused by the new mRNA vaccines. So much so that some vaccines have been pulled in some countries in Europe—Denmark has banned the use of the J&J vaccine—while at the time of this writing, the AstraZeneca vaccine is still on hold in the United States.
Short-term harms of fainting, sore arms, and other minor self-limiting symptoms are being used to rationalize the notion that the risks associated with the mRNA vaccines are outweighed by the harms caused by COVID-19, and we wouldn’t argue with this. However, in others, irreversible neurological harms or thromboembolic injuries have been observed.

Potential Long-Term Harms

We must recognize that children have a potential future lifespans of 50 to 80 to 100-plus more years. In such cases, whether longer-term harms exist, and just how severe those harms might be, becomes an important risk.
It has been reported, for example, that the adjuvant carriers (lipid-nanoparticles) used in the mRNA vaccines also have antigenic properties and may cause allergic immune reactions. These lipid-nanoparticles have been found, following injection, in the neural tracts, central nervous system, liver, and other organs.

While the majority—70 percent—of the vaccine (mRNA plus lipid-nanoparticles) traffics directly to the lymph nodes in the armpit where the information is processed by the lymphocytes for the purposes of antibody production, small amounts will also be found in other parts of the human body that might not ordinarily “see” these adjuvant-associated antigens. Accordingly, the immune system will direct antibodies to fight off these “invaders.” This likely explains reports of central nervous system disorders. We believe long-term safety data is needed just for this very potential risk.

The S protein is defined in part by its attraction to both the neural system and the vascular system, where it invokes an inflammatory response and causes damage to blood vessels with clotting and bleeding, similar to findings in the late stages of COVID-19 infection. Additional data in the scientific literature points to the possibility for development of longer-term—2 to 3 years—effects on the arteries of the lung that lead to a concentric thickening of the pulmonary (lung) artery from a low-grade inflammatory response leading to a deadly illness called pulmonary artery hypertension. This illness takes 2 to 3 years from onset to kill an individual. We remain concerned about these potentialities, especially where children are involved.
A March Lancet article authored by Sunil Bhopal and colleagues stated, In the USA, UK, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, and South Korea, deaths from COVID-19 in children remained rare up to February 2021, at 0.17 per 100,000 population, comprising 0.48 percent of the estimated total mortality from all causes in a normal year.”
Why would this cohort of our society and the very future of humanity be subjected to potential harms that remain unknown?

Possible Factors Leading to the Push to Vaccinate Children

Reports of the pharmaceutical companies that created the vaccines earning large dividends from vaccine production must give us pause, such as the CEO of Pfizer commenting that the vaccine would provide a “durable demand” as the company posted a $3.5 billion revenue from the vaccine for the quarter.

In a fair market system, where innovation and empirical testing has yielded appropriate benefits and risks, a financial gain is both earned and justified. However, we feel that this isn’t the case at present.

Fauci again has his eyes set on this project for September 2021. He proposes that children between the ages of 12 and 17 will be vaccinated after the rapid investigation of immediate harms from the vaccines have been reviewed, as well as younger children in early 2022.
We also wonder why adults who have recovered should be vaccinated. It’s well known that recovered individuals have robust immunity that lasts for months. Although this is an uncomfortable question to ask, we wonder whether it’s the future “durable” revenue stream that drives such demand, rather than biological motives, at the cost of potential future harm?

We believe that the FDA and the CDC should halt the drive to vaccinate young children and adolescents immediately. We feel that the vaccine manufacturing companies should waive their immunity status, especially for children. Where harm is observed that might plague children over the duration of their lives, they must be compensated for such harm, such as medical bills or long-term care.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Parvez Dara, M.D., MBA, is an oncologist in Toms River, New Jersey. He received his medical degree from King Edward Medical University and has been in practice for more than 20 years.
Related Topics