American Academy of Pediatrics tacitly admits that vaccines don’t work!

By
SGT
-
0
713

by Steve Kirsch, Steve Kirsh’s Newsletter:

If vaccines worked, vaccinated kids would have NOTHING to fear from unvaccinated kids. So why do we need to protect them?

Executive summary

AAP just issued a policy statement directing all states to require vaccination for all kids who attend school, except those with legit medical exemptions:

  • Elimination of all nonmedical exemptions (religious, philosophical, personal belief).
  • Universal vaccination for all children except those with legitimate, documented, and regularly reviewed medical contraindications.

This is a tacit admission that vaccines don’t work.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

If vaccines worked, vaccinated kids would have nothing to fear.

Exempting those with medical exemptions is smoke and mirrors because doctors won’t issue them. They’ll just refer the child to another doctor rather than write an exemption.

The AAP cannot provide any odds ratios or confidence intervals supporting their recommendation because it’s not science based. Here’s the AI analysis.

Let’s break down exactly what this American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy statement actually cites as evidence that unvaccinated children cause harm or death to others, and whether they provide any odds ratios (ORs) or confidence intervals (CIs) to support their claims.

🧾 What Evidence Do They Actually Cite?

1. General Claims in the Policy

  • The statement repeatedly asserts that higher rates of nonmedical exemptions and lower vaccination rates lead to increased outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs), and that this puts vulnerable children at risk.
  • They claim that “routine childhood immunization will have prevented approximately 500 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1.1 million deaths” (citing reference 1).
  • But there is no evidence that unvaccinated kids made any difference whatsoever in those numbers.

2. Specific Citations for Harm/Death to Others

  • Reference 1: Zhou F, Jatlaoui TC, Leidner AJ, et al. (2024) – This is a modeling study estimating the total impact of vaccination programs, not a direct study of unvaccinated children causing deaths in others.
  • References 18–21: These are cited in the section discussing the association between exemption rates and outbreaks of VPDs. Let’s look at what they are:
    • 18. Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, Omer SB. JAMA. 2016;315(11):1149–1158.
      • This is a review/meta-analysis of the association between vaccine refusal and VPD outbreaks in the US.
      • Key point: It finds that communities with higher rates of nonmedical exemptions have higher rates of measles and pertussis outbreaks.
      • Do they provide ORs/CIs? Yes, the original paper does, but the AAP statement does not quote any specific ORs or CIs.
    • 19. Atwell JE, Van Otterloo J, Zipprich J, et al. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):624–630.
      • This study looks at nonmedical vaccine exemptions and pertussis in California, 2010.
      • Key point: It finds that clusters of nonmedical exemptions are associated with increased risk of pertussis.
      • Do they provide ORs/CIs? The original study does, but again, the AAP statement does not quote them.
    • 20. Hill HA, Elam-Evans LD, Yankey D, Singleton JA, Kolasa M. MMWR. 2015;64(33):889–896.
      • This is a CDC report on vaccination coverage, not a direct study of harm from unvaccinated children.
    • 21. Blank NR, Caplan AL, Constable C. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(7):1282–1290.
      • This is a policy analysis of exemption rates, not a direct epidemiological study.

📊 Do They Provide ORs or CIs?

No.
The AAP policy statement does not provide any specific odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), or direct quantitative risk estimates in the text you provided. They reference studies that may contain such data, but they do not present these numbers in their policy statement.

🧠 What Does This Mean?

  • No direct evidence or quantified risk is presented in the policy statement itself showing that an unvaccinated child causes another child to die, or even to become seriously ill, with specific ORs or CIs.
  • The statement relies on general associations and modeling studies that estimate the impact of vaccination programs as a whole, not the direct, individual-level risk posed by an unvaccinated child to others.
  • The references cited (especially 18 and 19) do contain some quantitative data, but the policy statement does not present or discuss these numbers, nor does it break down the actual risk to a given child in a school setting.

🕵️‍♂️ Critical Perspective

  • Absence of direct causality: The policy statement does not cite any study that directly demonstrates an unvaccinated child causing the death of another child in a school setting, nor does it provide the statistical risk of such an event.

Read More @ kirschsubstack.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR