Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
Kostoff RN, Calina D, Kanduc D, Briggs MB, Vlachoyiannopoulos P, Svistunov AA, Tsatsakis A.
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.08.010
- Record issued
- 2026-08-05
- Engine
- 7.15.0
- Exported
- 2026-09-19
Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/741e6432-5af6-4397-a7dd-b4b74509d83a is authoritative.
How this rating was calculated
- ClaimsOverstated claim ×2−1★
- IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
- ClaimsUnsupported claim (uncorroborated)−0.5★
- CopyeditManuscript needs significant editing−0.5★
- ReportingReporting transparency partially met−0.25★
- References were not verified against Crossref/OpenAlex.
- Statistics were not checked: no recomputable values were found in this text — no test statistic reported with its degrees of freedom, no effect estimate printed with both a 95% CI and a p-value, and no percentage printed with both its count and its denominator.
- 01Conclusion not supported by the paper’s own evidence
Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, the COVID-19 inoculation is operationally a 'treatment' rather than a vaccine.
“Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, it is operationally a “treatment”.”
Introduction - 02Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
A best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the 65+ demographic.
“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.”
Abstract - 03Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
The risk-benefit ratio for the 65+ demographic is at least 5:1 (five times more likely to die from the inoculation than from COVID-19).
“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.”
Abstract
This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.
The paper is a narrative review/commentary that effectively establishes its premise but suffers from a missing funding/COI disclosure, empty citation brackets, and an abstract that overstates the scenario-based cost-benefit result. The majority of rigor dimensions are not applicable due to the study type, but the two applicable dimensions (scientific premise and reporting transparency) show adequate foundations with notable reporting gaps.
The paper is a narrative review, so six of eight rigor dimensions (study design, biological variables, ethical approvals, key resources, statistical analysis, data/code availability) are not applicable. The three independent reviewer evaluations agreed on all dimensions except data/code availability, where a 2-1 majority supported not applicable over fail. The copyedit pass and verification components (claim audit, integrity) were incorporated into the action items.
Numerical inconsistencies
None foundValues that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.
Checked — nothing surfaced.
Overstated conclusions
3 findings · worst highConclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.
- Conclusions not supported by the paper’s own evidenceAssessed
- Conclusions overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed
- Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed
12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 3 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).
- unsupportedReviewer 1Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, the COVID-19 inoculation is operationally a 'treatment' rather than a vaccine.The paper offers no direct evidence that the inoculation's main function in practice is symptom suppression; it is an assertion used to justify terminology.Evidence: None beyond the author's assertion in the Introduction.
“Since its main function in practice appears to be symptom suppression, it is operationally a “treatment”.”
Introduction - overstatedReviewer 1A best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the 65+ demographic.The paper does present a calculation yielding a 5/1 ratio, but it relies on unvalidated assumptions (100x VAERS underreporting, 94% misattribution) and is further qualified in the appendix as 'under the most favorable assumptions'; the abstract presents it as a factual result.Evidence: Appendix D cost-benefit analysis; text: 'Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1.'
“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.”
Abstract - overstatedReviewer 3The risk-benefit ratio for the 65+ demographic is at least 5:1 (five times more likely to die from the inoculation than from COVID-19).The paper's own analysis presents this as a 'best-case scenario' and relies on several assumptions (VAERS underreporting, 94% misdiagnosis of COVID-19 deaths) that are not universally accepted. The claim is presented as a definitive conclusion in the abstract, which overstates the evidence.Evidence: Appendix D: 'Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1.'
“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.”
Abstract - partialReviewer 1The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.The age-related decrease in COVID-19 death risk is supported by Fig 1, but the claim that long-term vaccine effects will increase the risk-benefit ratio is speculative.Evidence: Fig 1; discussion of possible mid- and long-term adverse effects from spike protein and LNP.
“The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
Abstract - partialReviewers 2, 3Children should not be vaccinated against COVID-19 because the risks outweigh the benefits.The paper argues this based on the negligible COVID-19 risk in children and potential harms from vaccines, but the evidence for long-term harms in children is circumstantial and extrapolated from adult data and animal studies.Evidence: Sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 discuss potential toxicities of spike protein and LNP, but direct evidence in children is limited to short-term VAERS reports.
“The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
Conclusion - partialReviewer 3Post-inoculation deaths are underreported in VAERS by about two orders of magnitude.The paper cites a Harvard Pilgrim study and its own Appendix 1 analysis to support this, but the evidence is indirect and based on a single study, making the claim partially supported.Evidence: Appendix 1: 'Historically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events.'
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report about 1% of actual vaccine/inoculation adverse events.
Introductionreviewer’s wording - supportedReviewer 1The bulk of official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.The paper's Fig 1 and accompanying text directly show this age distribution.Evidence: Fig 1: COVID-19 Deaths per capita by age in the United States; text states deaths are negligible in the 0-17 demographic.
“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”
Abstract - supportedReviewer 1The bulk of normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly, while normalized post-inoculation deaths are small but not negligible in children.Fig 2 presents normalized post-inoculation deaths by age, and the text explicitly contrasts the 0-17 demographic with the elderly.Evidence: Fig 2: Post-inoculation deaths per dose of inoculant; text: 'the normalized deaths are small, but not negligible' for 0-17.
“The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children.”
Abstract - supportedReviewer 1Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term, had samples not representative of the total population, and had poor predictive power for adolescents/children because of small size.The paper's review of the Pfizer trial (Table 1) shows only 46 vaccine recipients aged 12-15 and 66 aged 16-17, and the text notes short follow-up.Evidence: Table 1 Demographics; text: '2,260 adolescents... 1,308... followed for at least 2 months after the second dose.'
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.”
Abstract - supportedReviewer 1The clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases.The paper documents that the Pfizer trial protocol measured only a narrow set of metrics and that the NEJM Phase 1 report focused on symptoms and antibody responses.Evidence: Section 2.2.1: 'The only metrics other than these reported were transiently decreased lymphocyte counts.'
“Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases.”
Abstract - supportedReviewer 2Children have negligible risk of death from COVID-19.The paper provides per capita death data from CDC showing very low rates in children.Evidence: Figure 1 and Table 1 show COVID-19 deaths per capita by age, with negligible values for under 18.
“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”
Figure 1 - supportedReviewer 2Clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines were too short and not representative of the target population.The paper cites the trial demographics and duration from the Pfizer insert, showing a small proportion of elderly and adolescents, and the short follow-up.Evidence: Table 1 shows only 4.4% of participants aged 75+; the text states trial duration was a few months.
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.”
Table 1
Data authenticity concerns
1 finding · worst lowAn adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.
- Other integrity concernAssessed
1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).
- lowotherThe headline 5/1 risk-benefit ratio depends on two strongly speculative corrections (a ~100-fold VAERS underreporting multiplier and a 94% COVID-19 death misattribution correction), which the paper labels 'conservative' without validating either assumption within the paper.
“Second, as the CDC has stated, approximately 94 % of the COVID-19 deaths could have been attributed to any of the comorbidities these patients had, and only 6% of the deaths could actually be attributed to COVID-19.”
Supplementary material
Reporting gaps
1 finding · worst mediumRequired detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.
- Reporting/transparency gapsAssessed
The paper cites numerous studies on COVID-19 epidemiology, clinical trial limitations, and vaccine adverse events. It acknowledges the weaknesses of the clinical trials (e.g., short duration, unrepresentative samples) and explains how its analysis addresses these gaps. The premise that children face negligible COVID-19 risk and that vaccines may pose disproportionate harm is logically derived from the cited evidence.
“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.”
“The only metrics other than these reported were transiently decreased lymphocyte counts.”
“The Pfizer inoculation trial results are contained in the fact sheet for healthcare providers administering vaccine (vaccination providers) []. There were two clinical trials conducted to gain FDA EUA for Pfizer: a smaller Phase 1/2 study, and a larger Phase 1/2/3 study.”
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.”
“This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children.”
“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”
The paper does not involve randomization, blinding, power analysis, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or any other study design features. It is a perspective piece that synthesizes published data and performs a back-of-the-envelope calculation. All sub-criteria are not applicable.
No sex, age, weight, species, or housing conditions are reported because the study does not involve any biological samples or subjects. The paper is a review, so biological variables are not applicable.
The paper does not generate new data from human participants, use non-public identifiable data, or involve animal experiments. It analyzes publicly available data sets (CDC, VAERS). Therefore, ethics approval and informed consent are not applicable.
The paper discusses vaccines but does not report on specific lots, antibodies, cell lines, or reagents. It cites public data and does not produce custom code. All sub-criteria are not applicable.
No hypothesis tests are conducted, no p-values are reported for new analyses, and no statistical software is identified. The paper's cost-benefit calculation is arithmetic, not inferential. All sub-criteria are not applicable.
The paper is a commentary that references public datasets (VAERS, CDC). It does not create new data or code. All sub-criteria are not_applicable.
“Acknowledgement Not applicable.”
“Data obtained from https://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.html on 6/15/2021.”
Limitations are discussed (e.g., short trial duration, VAERS underreporting). The conclusion that children should not be vaccinated is supported by the presented evidence, though the strength of the evidence may be debated. However, no funding sources or conflicts of interest are disclosed, which is a reporting gap for a viewpoint article. Trial registration and reporting guideline adherence are not applicable.
“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.”
“people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions!”
“Acknowledgement Not applicable.”
“Acknowledgement Not applicable.”
“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.”
“Acknowledgement Not applicable.”
“Thus, our extremely conservative estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions!”
Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.
Broken references and links
None foundReferences checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.
Checked — nothing surfaced.
5 data/code links checked; 4 live.
- datahttps://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.htmlLIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
- datahttps://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hckuLIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
- datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728LIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
- datahttps://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/COVID-19-Vaccination-Demographics-in-the-United-St/km4m-vcsbLIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
- datahttps://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=4B5522C8D1DA68F1A364646B0DA5UNVERIFIEDHTTP 500Liveness indeterminate — content not checked.
Copyediting
1 finding · worst lowWording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.
- Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed
9 copyedit issues flagged (1 major): mostly consistency, typo, clarity.
- MAJORconsistencyThroughout (e.g., Introduction)“still in effect throughout the world [].”→ Insert numbered citations in all empty [] brackets.Many references are placeholders.
- MINORtypoSection 2.1“The associated disease was called Coronavirus Disease 2019, or COVID-2019.”→ Change 'COVID-2019' to 'COVID-19'.
- MINORtypoSection 3.2“Appendix Da presents some of the problems”→ Should read 'Appendix D' or 'Appendix D-a' as appropriate.
- MINORpunctuationSection 1“Section (Discussion) addresses these effects further Section (Summary and Conclusions)”→ Insert a period and start a new sentence: '...further. Section (Summary and Conclusions) presents...'
- MINORclaritySection 1“The article is structured as follows: Section (the present section) introduces the problem.”→ Use numbered section names instead of empty parentheses, e.g., 'Section 1 (Introduction) introduces the problem.'
- MINORconsistencyIntroduction“In the remainder of this article, we use the term ‘inoculated’ rather than vaccinated, because the injected material in the present COVID-19 inoculations prevents neither viral infection nor transmission.”→ Consider using a consistent term throughout; the paper alternates between 'inoculation' and 'vaccine'.The authors define their usage but occasionally revert to 'vaccine'.
- MINORclarityAbstract“The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”→ Remove redundancy: 'per capita' appears twice. Consider: 'The bulk of official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while deaths per capita are negligible in children.'Repetitive phrasing.
- MINORgrammarIntroduction“A vaccine is legally defined as any substance designed to be administered to a human being for the prevention of one or more diseases.”→ This sentence is fine, but the following sentence about patent application is a run-on. Consider breaking into two sentences.Run-on sentence.
- MINORconsistencyVarious“The paper uses both 'inoculation' and 'vaccination' interchangeably after defining a preference for 'inoculation'.”→ After defining the term, consistently use 'inoculation' throughout to avoid confusion.Inconsistent terminology.
The published paper is a narrative review/commentary with a speculative cost-benefit calculation. Its rigor is limited by the absence of a funding/COI disclosure, empty citation brackets, and a headline conclusion that overstates the scenario-based analysis. An informed reader should weigh these reporting gaps; the paper does not warrant an erratum for the core critique but the 5/1 ratio claim should be read with its appendix caveats in mind. A correction to add the missing disclosures and to qualify the abstract claim would strengthen the paper's trustworthiness.
- 1.HIGHreportingAdd a funding/conflict-of-interest disclosure (or issue a correction to add one).The paper lacks any funding or conflict-of-interest statement, which is a standard reporting requirement for journal articles and is essential for readers to assess potential biases.
- 2.HIGHcopyeditFill all empty citation brackets ([]) with proper numbered references throughout the manuscript.Many citations are placeholders, preventing readers from verifying the sources and undermining the credibility of the paper.
- 3.HIGHreportingRevise the abstract's headline 5/1 ratio claim to include the scenario-based qualifier (e.g., 'under the most favorable assumptions').The abstract presents the ratio as a factual conclusion, while the appendix qualifies it as a best-case scenario, which is an overstatement that could mislead readers.
- 4.HIGHrigorFor the claim that 'the COVID-19 inoculation is operationally a treatment rather than a vaccine,' either provide supporting evidence or remove the claim.The claim audit flagged this as unsupported; it is a key terminological assertion that lacks direct evidence in the paper.
- 5.HIGHcopyeditCorrect the typo 'COVID-2019' in Section 2.1 to 'COVID-19'.This is a factual error that could undermine the paper's credibility if not corrected.
- 6.MEDIUMcopyeditEnsure consistent use of the term 'inoculation' after defining it, rather than alternating with 'vaccine'.The paper defines a preference for 'inoculation' but occasionally uses 'vaccine', causing confusion and inconsistency.
- 7.MEDIUMcopyeditIn Section 3.2, correct 'Appendix Da' to 'Appendix D' or clarify the intended reference.This is a typo in a section reference that could confuse readers.
- 8.MEDIUMcopyeditIn Section 1, replace empty parentheses in section references with actual section numbers (e.g., 'Section 1 (Introduction)').Empty parentheses are unclear and should be replaced with specific section names for clarity.
- 9.MEDIUMcopyeditRevise the abstract to remove redundant 'per capita' phrasing (e.g., 'while deaths per capita are negligible in children').The current phrasing is repetitive and could be streamlined for clarity.
- 10.LOWrigorConsider providing a sensitivity analysis for the cost-benefit calculation to show how the 5/1 ratio changes with different assumptions about VAERS underreporting and death attribution.The single-point estimate is fragile; a sensitivity analysis would strengthen the analysis and allow readers to assess the robustness of the conclusion.
- 11.LOWreportingConsider adding a search strategy or explicitly labeling the paper as a non-systematic narrative review to avoid implying comprehensive literature coverage.Without a search strategy, the paper may be misinterpreted as a systematic review, which could mislead readers about the comprehensiveness of the evidence base.
The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”
- Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
- each dimension partially met−¼★
- Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
- each medium problem−½★
- Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
- Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★
The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.
The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.
Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.
This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.