> Shouldn’t we try very hard to avoid the possibility of screwing up a growing child’s body?

That's why we have the vaccine trials.

They're the very last step in testing a vaccine. And there really is no other option: if the end result is going to a vaccine given to small children at some point you're going to have to give it to some small children and see what happens. The only way around it is to not vaccinate children at all... which doesn't seem great from an ethical standpoint given the number of lives that have been saved by vaccines.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that not getting covid is better than not getting the vaccine for children.

There are studies coming out showing heart inflammation in younger people caused by the vaccines.

We should weigh up all the info to make a properly informed decision. Trials are there for a reason after all.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

It’s certainly worth evaluating, but if you read the study it says that the risk is 10-20x lower in getting the vaccine vs in getting COVID itself. Assuming you live in a world where COVID is rampant (we do), it sounds like the vaccines are a good call.

From the study "Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40."

See the graph here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/2

It seems reckless to me to enroll a kid in a vaccine trial where the FDA decided to skip the science advisory panel for childhood vaccines [1] because they last time denied the request. The way this is handled is unscientific, and I share the parents concern that this has no balance of risk vs reward.

The FDA skipping essential vaccine approval procedures in childhood vaccines, given fewer kids died of covid in 2020 than from the flu the year before, is one of the best signs that we are in a mass formation [2].

I understand that because there is only a liability shield for vaccines given to children pharma wants it for business reasons, but the FDA science advisory panel said risk vs reward does not scientifically justify childhood covid vaxx.

[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDpZ8daIVM

> Shouldn’t we try very hard to avoid the possibility of screwing up a growing child’s body?

Yes, that's why we vaccinate. Those pesky diseases can screw up a growing child's body quite effectively.

Polio.

Are you referring to all the children that were mistakenly given the live poliovirus from the first round of polio vaccines?

I'm referring to the billions of people who now live without fear of polio, and have for several generations.

How many children are you referring to?

The 100,000 doses of Cutter-manufactured Salk vaccine in 1955 with insufficiently inactivated, producing ~300 cases of paralytic polio, and causing the NIH & PHS to create and apply minimum manufacturing standards?

That's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that.

I think we're balancing the risks of screwing up kids with vaccines that have shown themself to be broadly safe in other humans with the risks of screwing them up by closing schools on and off, having them develop phobias of germs or humans, have learning delays, etc. It's not like the choice is "live and teach a certain way and vaccinate or not".

Yeah I agree, we should try hard to avoid giving novel viruses of concern to them without priming their immune system to them if at all possibel

Check out the research on vaccine lipid nano particles accumulating in ovaries and impacting menstruation, menopause, etc. These aren’t remote or isolated reports.

Then, consider that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

Now tell me it is a good idea to roll the dice and give that vax to a 5 year old girl and risk harming her reproductive future to avoid what will essentially be a cold to her if she contracts.

I googled it, I saw alarmist articles being criticized by doctors/scientist as being wild unsupported conjecture based on bad science.

I don't think it will affect reproductive organs negatively beyond what other infections do, but it is in general a very valid point.

run it in production, in smaller batches