Skip to main content

The Minnesota Department of Health Reaches Despicable New Lows

By October 29, 2021Commentary

The theme of this week’s DOH briefing was why we should force our young children to get vaccinated, notwithstanding that even members of the FDA committee acknowledged that safety was essentially untested.  Given the extremely low risks to children from CV-19 infection, and the likelihood that there will be side effects in children, this is not a simple decision.  My message to parents remains unchanged, when you are estimating the benefits and risks of vaccinating your children, you should understand that unless the risk from the vaccine is basically zero, the risk of CV-19 to children is lower.

The focus was on lying about the number of cases in school-aged children and the seriousness of those cases.  The purpose of this misinformation is to scare parents into vaccinating their children.  This is essentially using children as an experiment, given the complete absence of adequate trials to identify the safety profile of the vaccine in children.  Here is a story on an FDA advisory panel member who abstained from voting, because he knows there is not adequate data on safety.  (FDA Story)   The adults who push vaccination of these kids are doing so solely to protect themselves, not because children need to be vaccinated.  This is grotesque and despicable.

One of the data requests I have in with the state, which I intend to sue to enforce, relates to child hospitalizations.  Once more Commissioner Malcolm lied about the nature of pediatric hospitalizations.  Most of these are not for CV-19, it is only incidental.  She also lied about the nature of trials in children, saying it had been found “highly” effective and safe.  That is a lie, lie, lie.  The FDA acknowledged that in fact the trials were not powered to identify safety issues and also not powered to really analyze relative risk from the vaccine and from CV-19.  I encourage you to review the FDA materials, which are found here.  (FDA Materials)   I will expound on these in a future post.

The education commissioner chimed in with more lies and with implicit coercion against children who don’t get vaccinated.  In the question and answer period, the Commissioner misleading referred to safety given the millions of doses given around the world, but she is talking about to adults, not children.  The experience in children has led some countries to ban use of the Moderna vaccine in young males or young people altogether.

I cannot tell you how much it distresses me to see this campaign to force vaccination in children given the lack of safety data and the very limited benefit in children.

I just want to also note that we have heard nothing lately from DOH regarding masks and schools.  As usual you always need to identify what isn’t being reported by these jackasses.  They have data about schools with mask mandates versus those without, and I guarantee you there is no difference in cases in those two sets of schools or we would be constantly hearing about it as we did at one point shortly after schools opened when there was an outbreak in a school without a mask mandate.  I know just from reading the news that there have been large outbreaks in, for example, the Minneapolis schools with a mask mandate.

Another area covered in the briefing was the wonderful data that the Department constantly gives us and how they are going to improve it even more.  I don’t believe a word of that.  They first noted, without directly saying so, that their contact tracing has been a completely waste of money, so now they will focus it more on certain cases.  We also, consistent with the child vaccination sub-campaign of terror, get more data on pediatric cases, as well as more breakthrough data and data on reinfections.  You don’t want to overestimate your potential impact on events, but each of these areas is one on which I have a data practices act request pending.  I suspect the DOH is trying to get ahead of having to release that data.  We will see.

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • Jay says:

    Hi, thanks again for the work you do here.
    In connection with you comments above, what do you think of the pre planning for all of this? This was passed mid summer ->
    https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/prevention/93208
    I heard the claim that this allegedly no connection to kids being vaxxed, but I dont believe them, feel like its all coming together against us. Curious your thoughts…..

  • Brandt Johnson says:

    They are coming for the kids. Look at this https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/two-more-school-staff-members-die-from-covid-19-in-minnesota

    We never say that about any other profession, and teachers are required to be vaxxed. This is just propaganda to push vaccine on kids.

  • Mike says:

    I’m having trouble finding any support for your claim that “The experience in children has led some countries to ban use of the Moderna vaccine in young males or young people altogether.” All I can find indicates that Sweden, Finland, and Iceland have either “paused” or “temporarily suspended” use of the Moderna vaccine in young people. That’s really not the same as a “ban…altogether” as you claim. As an attorney, you should understand the importance of precision in your words.

  • Mike says:

    Jay, was this part of a Q drop or something? When you’re talking about “the pre planning for all of this” are you saying there is some plan from an anti-child cabal to hurt children’s hearts with a vaccine and then feed them blood thinners in order to… what? Profit? Or is the end goal just hurting kids?

    As far as I can tell, this is very goofy nonsense that belongs on a site about steel beam melting points and grassy knolls. But I guess that’s whom this site is attracting these days…

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I completely agree with you and I am trying to keep too crazy stuff off the site, but I guess I am not always successful. I really don’t want the conspiracy crap

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I believe that the countries have actually stopped all use and there is no indication that they are even considering lifting the ban, which means in common use “to prevent”

  • Craig B. says:

    Thank you for all you do. I know you put a lot of work into getting this info out, but it is greatly appreciated by many across the nation. Keep up the battle. Your wisdom is desperately needed!

  • Jay says:

    Let me reword ……Boehringer Ingelheim over the summer got the first ever oral medication for blood thinning approved for children aged 3 months to less than 12 years of age with venous thromboembolism. Boehringer in the past has worked with Pfizer on other approvals. I am wondering if you believe Boehringer was working on this early on knowing Pfizer was going to get the EUA on vaxxing kids right about now in prep for any vax side effects on kids? If this is nothing, ignore me, just keeping the skeptic side of the site going.
    https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/first-oral-medication-for-blood-thinning-in-children-granted-fda-approval

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    Kevin is correct. While it isn’t an outright ban in the sense of legal prohibition, since the government generally runs the medical system in these countries (and pays for the vaccines) and the government is recommending against using Moderna in these cases, it’s pretty much a ban.

    Also, while Sweden’s first public posture was a wait-see “pause” until December 1, they recently extended it apparently indefinitely: https://news.yahoo.com/sweden-extends-pause-moderna-covid-121039861.html. And Iceland outright stopped it for those age categories, they are not characterizing it as a “pause”.

    There’s no point splitting hairs. If these countries are discontinuing the use of this product in specific circumstances, due a perceived bad risk benefit calculus in children, why argue semantics?

  • guest says:

    Minnesota Statutes, 609.378 NEGLECT OR ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD.
    Subdivision 1.Persons guilty of neglect or endangerment.
    …(1) intentionally or recklessly causing or permitting a child to be placed in a situation likely to substantially harm the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health or cause the child’s death…

  • Watt says:

    I hope you will comment on the Lancet article referenced by John Hinderaker at https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/10/covid-vaccines-dont-work-well-enough-to-be-mandated.php.

    His point is that the relative closeness of the two figures implies that vaccine mandates are inappropriate. I’m wondering if the mere 13-percentage-point different makes the vaccines worth the trouble at all, or repeated “boosters” worth the trouble at all. Or are there other stats/variables one should consider?

  • Abhijit Bakshi says:

    Watt, Kevin did comment on the Lancet study in this post: https://healthy-skeptic.com/2021/10/28/coronamonomania-lives-forever-part-46/

    The Lancet study is the one referenced in paragraph #1 of that post. (“A large study from Sweden followed…”) The study isn’t yet published in Lancet, there is a preprint available on SSRN.

    There are some semi-spicy interchanges in the comments which you can chalk up to our various bias (Kevin being more accepting of the fascinating experiment called mRNA injections, and myself being more of a knuckle-dragging extremist who finds the injection obsession apalling).

    If you want a third take, I highly recommend this one: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-study-shows-covid-vaccines. But it follows my biases.

  • Watt says:

    Abhijit Bakshi: Thank you.

  • Dan says:

    I’m surprised no one mentioned the $200 payoff to get your kid vaccinated. That’s double the max adult payoff and an obvious attempt to trick low income families with lots of kids that need any money they can get. They probably work multiple jobs and don’t have time to search for the fact the government is using their kids as lab rats.

Leave a comment