Legitimate questions on "Real-World Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Two Doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination in Children Aged 5–11 Years"

This entry contains data, code and document references that support the paper entitled as the entry. The aim of this paper is pose some questions raised by the reading of the paper "Real-World Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Two Doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination in Children Aged 5–11 Years" published in the Vaccines journal. Submission has been declined without review by the editor. Some miscellaneous thoughts related to the paper that do not fit in it. 1 Risks and benefits All along the COVID-19 has been an extensive debate about the tradeoff between risk and benefit as if there was only one category and a single problem. However there are a miriad of risk-benefit evaluations at diverse people and with extremely diverse interpretations of the words “risk” and “benefit”. For instance, writing this paper I face the risk of being insulted and harassed by fact checkers and authorities. Being rejected is not minor thing. My only benefit is the reivindication of my right to question, think and express my thinking. Big pharmaceutical companies expect benefits in the order of tens or hundred of billions (euros or dollars), while the risks if the new drug is not up to the propaganda are not much, payment seems to be settled and secured in advance and there is no risk of being held liable of anything. Their perception of risk has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the end client (you), as far as they generate profits for the investors, and the new factories (mostly automated, little human labor) are working full time. In order to ensure that the market will follow the needs of the company, the connection to the decision makers (in Brussels or in Washington) are well greased. In other words, they avoid the risk of low demand by having their "dear friends" to make mandatory their products (like in Italy) or to put such pressure to the public that people do not see any way out but through the "vacunodromos". So if you wonder if lockdowns were effective, the answer is a big YES, not to stop the virus but to herd the people into the shots. For a fragile person reasoning about the risk/benefit balance falls in another category of thinking. The experimental drug may affect heavily an already ovewhelmed system, even producing death. The perception of benefit lies in the acceptance of the narrative of fear and doom and miraculous salvation. Besides, no institution or company will review your case to compensate for damages, because they do not exist as per definition. Notice that the original clinical trials excluded fragile people, so there was not any clue on the effect of the so called vaccine on them. In such situation it is often a caregiver or some family in charge that takes the decision, if you choose "no" you may be charged with the death, if you choose "yes", the death will go to the count of the “you know, these things happen, it was close to the end anyway”. If the person is healthy and without risk of COVID-19 bad outcome, the benefits are negligible and the risks are becoming more apparent every day. The emotional blackmail of “doing it for the community” has lost any social meaning after the clear declaration by a Pfizer top executive at the European Parlament that they had no information about the “vaccine” stopping transmission. This was known since the very beginning of the mass "vaccination" but dismissed in the "official" media as conspiracy theory or anti-science. For instance, early in 201 in France an old person went to the tribunals of justice, up to the top, in order to be allowed to stop using face mask. His appeals were dismissed because it was well known by the judges that the vaccine does not stop transmission. The "social responsibility" message was found to be quite effective in a randomized control trial carried out at Yale mid 2020. Regarding "vaccination" for healthy people, UK has already stopped paying for the "vaccine" and recommended it with quite circular reasonings, without acknowledging the lack of effect and its dangers, aka adverse events. Other countries are following suit. Some "vaccines" like Jenssen and Astrazenka have quietly disappear, without any word of acknowledgement or apologies for the damage done. So, looks like having the "safe an effective" was not without risks. The critical issue when people are confronted with these decisions is the ability to pose the legitimate questions in order to understand what the true benefits and risks are for each person. Dispossessing us of our right tso question and to seek independent opinions from people without conflicts of interest is very likely the “Crime of the Century”. One way the authorities are pursuing is to deny rationality to the people that do not comply, to the antivax, so they fall in the category of mentally ill and unable to make the correct decision, which, of course, is to follow blindly and unquestioningly the dictate of the authority that is close contact with the industry and the financial powers backing and sucking it. 2 Marketing versus scientific writing and conclusions Some hints: Marketing papers almost never share the source data, it is infrequent to have the actual code used to compute the reported results. On the other hand: Scientific papers increasingly provide full access to data and code. The issue of conflicts of interest is a rather tricky one. Digging into the ways that such influence may surface should not be limited to read the mostly uninformative declarations of the authors. For instance, in [vaccines10111954] authors declare no conflict of interest, however the funds needed for carrying out all the work and the analytics should come from some source, even the vaccines have some costs, and brief search shows quickly strong ties between the institution and the industry. Marketing papers use confusion and association tools, like ignoring negative results even when they are published in the paper, or include positive associations that are completely unsuported in the paper. Tricky incorrect statistics, such as hidden sampling bias or biased estimations of critical parameters that can not be checked in absence of the source data, are also applied