As Simple As Possible But No Simpler: Some Cautionary Thoughts On The Juvenile Hepatitis Cases
Not Everything Is The Fault Of The mRNA Inoculations
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” — Albert Einstein
In addition to being the preeminent physicist since Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein has also gifted future generations with one of the more quotable versions of Occam's Razor, the fundamental logical and analytical principle of simplicity. Simple explanations are generally preferable to complex ones, and explanations which rely heavily on prevailing assumptions are always inherently suspect.
We do well to keep these principles uppermost in our minds as we consider the recent outbreaks of hepatitis among young children both here in the US and in the UK.
What Are The Facts?
On April 15, the World Health Organization published a Disease Outbreak News Item describing an “acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology.”
On 5 April 2022, WHO was notified of 10 cases of severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children under the age of 10 years, across central Scotland. By 8 April, 74 cases had been identified in the United Kingdom. Hepatitis viruses (A, B, C, E, and D where applicable) have been excluded after laboratory testing while further investigations are ongoing to understand the aetiology of these cases. Given the increase in cases reported over the past one month and enhanced case search activities, more cases are likely to be reported in the coming days.
Although the first cases were reported in Scotland and the United Kingdom, three cases have been reported in Spain. Nine cases have been reported in Alabama. Since the initial reports on April 15th, additional cases have been found in Denmark, Ireland, and the Netherlands, plus 12 cases in Israel.
A scientific article describing the Scottish cases appeared in the online medical journal Eurosurveillance, and developed an initial working definition of a confirmed case:
A confirmed case includes anyone presenting since 1 January 2022 with aspartate transaminase (AST) or ALT greater than 500 IU/L of unknown cause who is either aged 10 years and under or who was a contact of any age of a possible or confirmed case. A possible case is defined as a person presenting since 1 January 2022 with jaundice without any known cause, either aged 10 years and under or who was a contact of any age of a possible or confirmed case.
While the various strains of hepatitis virus have been excluded, many of the children have tested positive either for the SARS-CoV-2 virus or adenovirus, in particular adenovirus type 41.
Some of the children have received liver transplants as a result of the novel infection.
The Eurosurveillance article favors an adenovirus infection as the probable cause of the hepatitis cases, although the authors take care not to exclude other potential causes and factors at this early stage are the epidemiological investigation.
Initial hypotheses about the aetiological nature of the severe hepatitis included either an infectious pathogen or a toxic exposure to food, drinks or toys favoured by younger children. Toxicology analyses are ongoing among cases from across the UK, although responses to the enhanced investigation questionnaire about food, drink and personal care habits have not yet identified any common exposures.
An infectious aetiology is now considered more likely given the epidemiological and clinical features, and taking into account the additional cases from across the UK and the US cluster. At the time of publication, the leading hypotheses centre around adenovirus—either a new variant with a distinct clinical syndrome or a routinely circulating variant that is more severely impacting younger children who are immunologically naïve. The latter scenario may be the result of restricted social mixing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adenovirus infection as a cause of severe hepatitis is rare in immunocompetent children but has been reported in case reports and series.
Could It Be The COVID-19 “Vaccines”?
After the mass inoculation efforts against COVID-19 in 2021, the question of a possible link to one or more of the COVID-19 inoculations is almost unavoidable.
It is certainly true that hepatitis is a documented adverse event within the VAERS database, and, as Steve Kirsch has pointed out, the COVID-19 inoculations have many times the number of recorded hepatitis adverse events as vaccines from prior years.
What does VAERS say? It says that the average # of reports for hepatitis in a year is around 8 cases. In 2021, for just the COVID vaccine, there were 304.
It should be noted that, at the moment, only 7 countries make COVID-19 inoculations available to children under the age of 5: China, Hong Kong, Bahrain, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, and Venezuela. Thus far, none of these countries have reported hepatitis cases to match the working case definition.
Therefore, it is quite probable that the younger children at least were not inoculated. Absent data to point towards the children being inoculated we should regard the representation that the children were not inoculated as reliable.
With the facts as they are currently reported, the COVID-19 inoculations, and especially the mRNA inoculations, despite the correlation between them and increased incidence of hepatitis, are not the most likely pathogen responsible for this particular hepatitis outbreak. While they are not conclusively exonerated, until it can be shown that the children suffering from this outbreak were inoculated they are an improbable source for the pathogen and are not directly a likely contributing factor.
However, diligent analysis always follows the data and if new evidence emerges to point to the inoculations this initial assessment will of course not stand.
Where Steve Kirsch Gets It Wrong
As I and numerous others have written alongside Steve Kirsch, the COVID-19 inoculations have significant problems and hazards. Not only are they shown to result in reverse transcription of the mRNA sequences into human DNA…
…but they are shown in country after country to make COVID-19 cases rise and not fall.
Moreover, Pfizer's own clinical data validates the mountain of VAERS case reports documenting multiple severe and even lethal side effects of the mRNA inoculations.
Additionally, we have documentation establishing the Pfizer was well aware of the toxicities of their inoculation and pushed it anyway.
We are—and Kirsch is—quite reasonably and appropriately suspicious of the COVID-19 inoculations, and should question whether they play any role in any new disease outbreak or adverse medical event. Steve Kirsch is quite right to call the presumptive “experts" out for their refusal to acknowledge the VAERS data. I share his disdain for the experts and join him in his challenge of and to them.
However, we do ourselves an injustice if we allow reasonable suspicion to become unreasonable bias, and this is where Steve Kirsch makes a significant mistake both of fact and of logic.
He makes the following assertion about the hepatitis articles he references:
The articles on the hepatitis outbreaks don’t suspect the COVID vaccines at all since the mainstream experts all think the COVID vaccines are safe and effective. So it’s not even an option that could be considered.
However, the Forbes article contains the following paragraph:
It’s unknown how many of the children had prior Covid infections. None of the Scottish children had been vaccinated. The other reports did not mention this detail for their cases.
The MassLive article takes the perspective that the causative pathogen is adenovirus type 41.
The affected children had gastrointestinal illness and even liver failure. Later analyses revealed a possible link of the hepatitis they contracted with Adenovirus 41, according to a statement from the department.
The Alabama Department of Public Health statement referenced in the MassLive article begins as follows:
Since November 2021, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH), in collaboration with pediatric healthcare providers including hospitals who treat children and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been investigating an increase in hepatitis in young children. These children presented to providers in different areas of Alabama with symptoms of a gastrointestinal illness and varying degrees of liver injury including liver failure. Later analyses have revealed a possible association of this hepatitis with Adenovirus 41.
The factual error Steve Kirsch makes is the presumption that inoculation status was ignored by both the media and the public health agencies. The Forbes article clearly contradicts that presumption, and the MassLive article essentially mooted the point by focusing on adenovirus type 41 infection. The logical error he makes is the hasty generalization that the hepatitis cases are likely due to COVID-19 mRNA inoculations, which ignores the presented data that the Scottish cases were explicitly said to be non-inoculated. With many of the hepatitis cases involving children below the age of 5—below which age inoculations are not approved—the mRNA inoculations just aren't a likely culprit based on the available data.
Contrary to Steve Kirsch’s assessment, the inoculations are an option that do not merit much consideration in regards to these hepatitis outbreaks. Subsequent data may reveal a connection to the inoculations, but as of yet the reported data does not point any damning fingers at the inoculations.
Why Does It Matter?
Steve Kirsch fans especially will wonder why I am taking him to task over this. Given the well established toxicities of the mRNA inoculations, what does one biomedical sin more or less matter?
The significance is that the Scottish study offers up an hypothesis for why adenovirus type 41 infection might be more virulent than before, restated here for clarity (emphasis mine) :
At the time of publication, the leading hypotheses centre around adenovirus—either a new variant with a distinct clinical syndrome or a routinely circulating variant that is more severely impacting younger children who are immunologically naïve.
The implication in this hypothesis is that these hepatitis outbreaks are lockdown-induced, rather than inoculation-induced.
As scandalous as the depravity of the Big Pharma inoculations and the attendant pharmaceutical authoritarianism has been and continues to be, we must remember that the lockdowns and other Faucist protocols, a scandal in their own right, are also healthcare impacting, and contribute considerably to the rise in all cause mortality this country has been experiencing. The question I posed two years ago, “Who Counts The Deaths From Recession?”, is still relevant today.
Nor is this idle speculation. Researchers have identified likely links between the lockdowns and social distancing protocols and various impairments of the immune system.
Does social distancing affect the immune system? Studies in socially isolated mice, primates, and other species have shown an up-regulation of antimicrobial inflammatory response and a parallel down-regulation of antiviral genes as well as higher overall levels of inflammation. Of note, high levels of inflammation are a driver for CVD. Social isolation was linked to down-regulation of Type I and II interferons and an impaired response to infection by simian immunodeficiency virus.
Additionally, there is research implicating a lack of exposure to a variety of environmental microbiota as a cause of immune system disregulation.
Meanwhile, the illnesses that are increasing in high-income countries are associated with failing immunoregulation and poorly regulated inflammatory responses, manifested as chronically raised C-reactive protein and proinflammatory cytokines. This failure of immunoregulation is partly attributable to a lack of exposure to organisms (“Old Friends”) from mankind’s evolutionary past that needed to be tolerated and therefore evolved roles in driving immunoregulatory mechanisms.
With the data we have in hand on these hepatitis cases, it is far more likely they are the result not of the Big Pharma inoculations but the lunatic lockdowns which have been inflicted on a far too credulous world over the past two years. The physical and social isolation imposed even on young children has had a likely consequence of weakening their immune systems, thus increasing sensitivity to otherwise mundane infections. If adenovirus type 41 is behind these hepatitis cases, its unusual virulence is quite possibly—even probably—a direct result of the lunatic lockdowns.
The scientific bastardy of Faucism is a prime suspect here, just not in the way Steve Kirsch presumes. The hubris, the incompetence, and the malevolence that inform the scandal of the inoculations also inform the scandal of the lockdowns. The same bureaucrats in the same agencies pushed both lunacies on a compliant public.
If people are to learn the right lessons from the many sins and errors of the Pandemic Panic Narrative, it is essential that we be mindful of all the ways Faucism has led public health astray. Faucist foolishness encompasses more than just the mRNA inoculations, and we do ourselves a disservice by having tunnel vision about any one element of Faucism.
The lesson of the hepatitis outbreaks is that the “science” behind the COVID lockdowns is every bit as demented and flawed as the “science” behind the COVID inoculations. The fallout from the lockdowns, like the fallout from the inoculations, will be with us for years to come.