The paper looked at 7,806 children aged five or younger who were tracked for an average of 91.4 days following their first injection with Pfizer's mRNA (messenger RNA) shot.
The retrospective cohort study was conducted using an authenticated online survey with a response rate of 41.1 percent. It included parents and / or caregivers who signed up children in their care for injection at one of Germany's many outpatient care facilities.
Any adverse events reported among these children were compared to those of other "control group" children who received other vaccinations but not covid injections. The reason we put "control group" in quotes is because a true control group would be children who received no vaccinations at all, but "science" never uses a real control group like that when looking at vaccine safety.
Based on this flawed, other-vaccinations-control-group methodology, the paper concluded that the adverse events reported post-injection with Pfizer were "comparable overall" to those reported in the non-covid-injected group – case closed. Or is it?
A closer look at the paper's revelations shows that the "moderately elevated" side effects in the covid-jabbed group of children were not so moderate after all. Here is the very statistically significant breakdown:
• Musculoskeletal (muscles and bones) symptoms: 155 percent higher
• Dermatologic (skin) symptoms: 118 percent higher
• Otolaryngologic (ears, nose, and throat) symptoms: 537 percent higher
• Cardiovascular (heart etc.): 36 percent higher
• Gastrointestinal (stomach etc.): 54 percent higher
Overall, symptoms of any kind were found to be 62 percent higher, on average, in the covid-jabbed group of children compared to the non-covid-jabbed group of children. How, then, were the researchers able to declare that the two groups were "comparable overall?" (Related: Covid jabs are also giving kids hepatitis.)
The answer, of course, is that the scientists involved pulled certain scientific sleights of hand to make the true disparity between the two groups seem minimal and insignificant. This happens a lot in the scientific community, which is heavily influenced by Big Pharma dollars.
One must extrapolate the data contained in the study further and in different ways than the way it is presented to get to the real truth about the shots, which is that they are killing far more children than "science" is letting on.
"The mortality rate in under-20s has been shown to be 0.0003%," writes Sean Adl-Tabatabai for Newspunch.
"The figure for under-fives will be even lower. But even if we unrealistically assume this is the mortality rate for under-fives and the vaccines reduce it to zero, this still means that at least 500 children are hospitalised for every life the vaccines save. In reality the ratio will be much worse than this."
Despite this, regulators in the European Union (EU) and the United States have authorized covid injections for young children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is also slated to approve the shots for addition to the official childhood immunization schedule.
"How many dead kids is it going to take to take a stand against a deadly vaccine being forced to take by the government and school systems?" asked a commenter.
"It's all profits to them," wrote another about the drug industry players that are pushing all this behind the scenes. "They make no money from healthy people."
"The only reason they're jabbing children is to sterilize them," suggested another.
The latest news about Chinese Virus injections can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for this article include: