What if every excuse for vaccinating every living person against COVID-19 is wrong?  If so, how should that change things?

Let's play what if.

What if the long-term harm to children being vaccinated is unknown?

It is.

What if the short-term harm to people, in general, may be great, even deadly?

Both are true.

What if the COVID vaccinations don't prevent contracting or transmitting the virus?

They don't.

What if only about 5% of deaths attributed to COVID showed only COVID to be the cause of death on the death certificates?

They do.

What if the remaining 95% were just as likely to have been killed by one of the four other co-morbidity causes of death also shown on the death certificate?

They are.

What if, as reported to the government, deaths are high in the short term after being given the vaccine?

They are.

What if the clinical trials used to justify the vaccine were "very short-term"?

They were.

What if the clinical trials consequently did not — could not — address what the long-term effects of the vaccine would be?

They did not and cannot.

What if clinical trials drew on samples not representative of the total population and, consequently, had poor predictive power for adolescents and children?

They did and do.

What if the short-term deaths from COVID for children are "negligible"?

They are.

What if, most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children and adolescents potentially for decades?

They did not.

What if an international panel of experts of clinical pharmacy, biotechnologies, biopharmaceutics, pathophysiology, pharmacology, forensic sciences, and toxicology concluded all the answers above in a peer-reviewed study published in the medical journal Toxicology Reports?

They did.

What if the authors of this research use the term "inoculated" rather than "vaccinated" "because the injected material in the present COVID-19 inoculations prevents neither viral infection nor transmission," the same reasoning the U.S. Patent Office used to reject a patent application using those words for the "vaccine"?

They did.

What if these experts documented their conclusions with references to 127 findings and research by other experts?

They do.

What did this panel of experts from the U.S., Italy, Greece, Russia, and Romania conclude after finding those answers to our "what if" questions above?

Here are just a couple of their conclusions:

A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65 demographic.

Perhaps most importantly, the authors were moved to conclude by posing this question:

Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

The experts apparently thought that that question raised by their research was important enough that they used it for the title of their published findings.

You can read the entire report here.

Meanwhile, consider a few other questions:

If the risks of being vaccinated outweigh the benefits, should you be vaccinated?  Clearly, something that important should be your decision.  So whom do you trust: the people profiting from the vaccine or people like this panel of medical researchers?

Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA technology used to produce the current COVID "vaccines," co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Times on Aug. 5.  He wrote:

The Biden administration's strategy to universally vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic is bad science and badly needs a reboot. This strategy will likely prolong the most dangerous phase of the worst pandemic since 1918 and almost assuredly cause more harm than good — even as it undermines faith in the entire public health system.

A final fact for your consideration.  Following the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, civilized nations agreed never again to repeat the horrors of experimenting on live human beings against their will, as Nazi "doctors" and "scientists" had done.

If you want to be inoculated with the so-called vaccines that do not prevent catching or spreading the virus and have considered the arguments pro and con, please get the jab.  Yours truly will pray for you.

If, however, you, like the authors of "Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?," think it's unwise, of little if any benefit, and potentially may cause great harm, maybe like yours truly, you won't get the two vaccine injections or any of the "booster" shots Big Pharma is preparing to roll out.

There are treatments for COVID-19 with far less risk than the so-called vaccines but with little profit for the profiteers.  HCQ and Ivermectin are among them.  If you need sources, see America's Frontline Doctors and Push Health, among others.  My bride and I have.

PS: After nearly two years of Big Pharma and its fanboys in the media demonizing ivermectin as a treatment option to the so-called vaccines, it seems the vaccine-makers plan to roll out their own version, under their label, no doubt at a considerably higher price to be paid by your tax dollars.  Did you know that since the COVID era began 18 months ago, Forbes reports that 40 new billionaires got rich "fighting" COVID?

You're surprised?

While you're considering that, you may want to check out this doctor's report on autopsies that revealed mysterious "metal" fragments detected in organs of people who were vaccinated but succumbed to COVID nonetheless.

Mark Landsbaum is a Christian retired journalist, former investigative reporter, editorial writer, and columnist.  He also is a husband, father, grandfather, and Dodgers fan.  He can be reached at mark.landsbaum@gmail.com. 

Image: torstensimon via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.