The New York Times has perfected the art of burying inconvenient information deep within their laboriously lengthy articles, allowing them to generate overarching narratives that may contradict the very information they are putting out. For instance, the Old Gray Lady stuffed Pfizer’s recent reports that children don’t exhibit enough symptoms from the COVID-19 virus to draw enough info on how the vaccine might affect them, yet the NYT reported that the vaccine was a powerful ally for children in the fight against the virus.

The article in question is titled “Covid Vaccine Prompts Strong Immune Response in Younger Children, Pfizer Says” and wrote below that children ages five to 11 showed evidence that the vaccine protected them, and only the F.D.A.’s approval stands between them and inoculation.

Author Apoorva Mandavilli immediately starts her article with the selling point:

The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine has been shown to be safe and highly effective in young children aged 5 to 11 years, the companies announced early Monday morning. The news should help ease months of anxiety among parents and teachers about when children, and their close contacts, might be shielded from the coronavirus.

Mandavilli continues to hammer home the idea that the vaccine is safe, that parents can relax, and that thousands of children have had to go to hospitals because of the COVID-19 virus so vaccinating children is a great idea. What’s more, places like red states are some of the worst offenders in terms of allowing children to spread the virus around and may kill grandpa and/or grandma. Of course, she also adds that putting masks on children significantly cuts down on virus transmission.

It’s not until a whopping16 paragraphs down that the real findings that Pfizer put forward in regards to children and the vaccine are even mentioned. What did Pfizer find in terms of how the vaccine affects children?

Nothing.

They found nothing because kids weren’t getting sick enough from the virus to show how the vaccine had any meaningful impact on them:

Given how rarely children become severely ill, the trial was not big enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the vaccine’s ability to prevent Covid or hospitalization. Instead, the researchers relied on measurements of the youngsters’ immune response, on the assumption that the protective levels of antibodies seen in older people would be as protective in younger children.

In other words, they can only assume the vaccine is having an effect by comparing the reactions to adult data. It’s an educated guess at best.

Regardless, the New York Times wanted to push the vaccine on your kids so bad that they’ll scare you into wanting to get your kid the jab before revealing that it likely doesn’t matter if you do far down into the article where more and more Americans are less likely to read it.

Here’s what the findings actually say.

Your kid likely doesn’t need the vaccine as children’s immune systems are far more hyperactive than those further up in age. With few exceptions, the vaccine will make very little difference in your child’s life.

There it is. That’s the bottom line.