top of page



So here’s some data from a study published last week conducted in Singapore between January and April of this year looking at the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in kids ages 5-11. You know, that group of children that Captain Hair-Sniffer and his tiny sidekick Liar-Boy are pushing you so hard to get vaxxed, because science. This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine so if you have some kind of problem with this data because you think you “know” something because Fauci or some talking head told you so, take it up with them. To be clear, Singapore has some of the best data collection on COVID in the world, as opposed to here where we never get to see any actual data (perhaps because as I have shown you before, we don’t seem to actually collect it). But hey, it’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated you know! The short and sweet in round numbers:

256,000 kids looked at (pretty much every single kid in Singapore between ages 5-11).

52,000 unvaccinated (20%)

31,000 “partially” vaccinated (12%)

173,000 “fully vaccinated (68%)

First, let’s address this “partially” vaxxed nonsense. If someone commits to the path of vaccinating and gets sick during that process, that stat belongs to the vaccinated group. Period. As I have pointed out before, many stats you see, certainly from this country, include the once vaxxed as “unvaxxed”. That’s just plain old dishonest. Dishonesty you say amongst COVID data? Whoda thunkit? But I digress...

The authors deliver their data in “person days” which is a cool way to confuse the reader and obfuscate the impact of the data (thus allowing for "conclusions" which don't match the data), but in basic (actual) terms, there were 288 hospitalizations out of 256,000 children. That’s a hospitalization rate of 0.1%. Now of course we’re not told how many of those hospitalizations were incidental, but other data from all over the world shows upwards of 50%-60% of kids counted as COVID hospitalizations are actually in the hospital for some other reason, so there’s that. But the more important statistic is that ONLY 5 KIDS needed oxygen, and ONLY 4 KIDS were admitted to the ICU. These would be considered “serious” cases and we can assume fairly confidently that these were actual COVID cases. That’s five needing oxygen out of 256,000 which means the risk to your kid of some serious COVID interaction stands at about 0.002% or two one-thousandths of one percent. By the way, in Singapore they had far fewer kids infected previous to this study so these numbers would translate here into a worst-case scenario. In the US somewhere above 90% of all kids show signs of antibodies. So a risk of hospitalization for Junior is somewhere below (probably far below) that 0.002% figure. Scary stuff.

Here’s an interesting aside; of the five kids on oxygen, only ONE was unvaccinated while TWO were partially vaxxed and TWO were fully vaxxed. That means that full 80% of "serious cases" were in the vaccinated camp. Also, NO children died. NONE.

Interestingly, the authors conclude (my bold) “During a period when the omicron variant was predominant, BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19–related hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age. Now this is true in respect to RATE of infection or hospitalization but as I have said many times, two times zero is still zero. To get a better understanding, of your kids’ chances of ending up in the hospital on oxygen or in the ICU let’s look at real numbers. By the way, one of the weaknesses of this kind of observational study is the difference in hospitalizations CANNOT be ascribed solely to vaccination status. It is entirely possible that if an unvaccinated kid was admitted to the hospital with a COVID diagnosis (about 90% of which are made WITHOUT a positive PCR test – they just “figure” that’s what it is) it could simply be because of the precautionary principle and since he’s unvaxxed they admit him “just in case”. We have no way to know.

Anyway, ONE unvaccinated kid needing oxygen (an actual “serious case”) out of 52,000 gives you a rate of 0.0019%. Rounded up that’s two one-thousandths of one percent. For the “fully vaxxed” that number is 0.0011% or rounded off to one one-thousandth of one percent. If you add the “partially vaxxed” to the “fully vaxxed” (which you should) you end up with 0.0019% or, again, rounded up to two one-thousandths of one percent. So as you can see, being vaccinated, fully or otherwise, provides ZERO protection from serious illness. Now that’s curious because we’ve been told IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that while the vaccine can no longer provide ANY protection against infection (hey remember “95% effective”? good times), it most certainly WILL protect you from “serious illness”. But that’s not what this (or other) data says. Explanations anyone?

Another thing. While the authors claim the vaccine is 82.7% "effective" at preventing infections, they also tell us that between 7-14 after the second jab that efficacy drops to 48.9%; from 15-29 days it's 37.6%, from 30-59 days 28.5% and more than 60 days 25.6%. So while we've been told you're not considered "fully vaccinated" until 14 days after your second shot (because that's when it "takes effect"), this data is telling us that by that time your "protection" is already BELOW 50% and it drops off precipitously from there. Now you may remember that a requirement for Emergency Use Authorization was that the vaccine would be at least 50% effective. While just 50% is a ridiculously low threshold to begin with, this ain't even that. So why is it still on the market and being pushed on your babies?

Oh and one last thing. If this wasn't so pathetic it would be kinda funny. The authors tell us “In Singapore, 22 serious adverse events after vaccination…among children 5 to 11 years of age were reported to the Health Sciences Authority as of February 28, 2022.” Now let’s see, FIVE kids need oxygen due to COVID, NO deaths, but TWENTY-TWO kids have “serious adverse events”. Now I’m no mathemagician (add that to the things I’m “not”) but it looks to me like the number of actual “serious adverse events” from getting the vaccine was more than FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the incidence of “serious illness” from COVID. So it would appear you have more than a FOUR TIMES HIGHER chance of your kid having a “serious problem” from getting vaxxed than not getting vaxxed. How do you like that? If your pediatrician is pushing the vaccine on you, you might want to consider getting a new pediatrician because he or she is either woefully ignorant or something much worse. Please think real hard this fall when there’s another full-court press on to vax your children.

35 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page