by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
- The rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is just 0.0008%. In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further
- Despite that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — on June 15, 2022, unanimously approved to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children
- Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old; Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years
- In granting this EUA, the FDA again ignored injury and death data and swept medical ethics aside
- The drug companies need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared “over,” the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Statistics show the rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%.1 In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further. Yet, despite such reassuring data, children in this age group are urged to get two to three doses of the COVID jab, even though side effects of the injection could harm them for life, or kill them.
As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video below, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”
Sudden cardiac death is what the media and public health agencies are now glibly referring to as “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS. The older and more appropriate description for SADS is “sudden arrhythmic death syndrome,” but they don’t even want to use the word “arrhythmic” anymore, as that tells you what the death is really caused by, and many are now aware that the jab can cause heart inflammation.
By avoiding the word “arrhythmic,” it’s easier for them to pretend as though people are dying for no apparent reason, and certainly not because of the COVID shots. Still, real-world facts tell us that SADS didn’t take off until after the shots were rolled out, and the vast majority of young healthy people who suddenly die for no apparent reason have been jabbed.2
Also, understand that if your child or you are injured by the shot, you cannot sue the drug company for damages and, so far, the U.S. government has rejected all but one of the claims filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).3 At the current pace of about 18 claims a month, it would take 38 years just to get through the current backlog, Reuters has noted.4 Basically, many may die before their case even gets through review.
COVID Jab Authorization Granted for Babies
As if the situation were not bad enough already, June 15, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously approved (21-0) to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.5
Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.
In the video at the top of the page, Steve Kirsch, president of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, interviews reporter Toby Rogers, who endured the entire nine-hour day of the recent VRBPAC meeting.
The day before that meeting, June 14, Rogers published6 a written summary of Pfizer’s trial on young children, which he referred to as “an embarrassment.” “Any VRBPAC member who votes Aye on this junk science application should be removed from his/her job,” he wrote. Apparently, they all need to go.
In the interview, Rogers laments the fact that the VRBPAC members remain “locked in their information bubble” and won’t allow any conflicting data to influence their preconceived biases.
As noted by Rogers, they have a sacred duty to protect public health, and they’re being flippant about it. They’re ignoring data, they’re ignoring the pleas of the vaccine injured, they’re ignoring serious questions, they’re ignoring everything except the flimsiest bits and pieces upon which their narrative is built. Rogers called the experience “heartbreaking.”
VRBPAC Refuses to Answer Lawmakers’ Questions
The VRBPAC members aren’t even swayed by concerns from lawmakers. They simply ignore their questions too. As reported by The Defender:7
“The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ignored pleas from experts, the vaccine injured and a congressman representing 17 other lawmakers to halt authorization until questions about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for the nation’s youngest children could be properly addressed …
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said there are many unanswered questions … ‘I’m deeply concerned that the push to vaccinate these children is nothing more than a dystopian experiment with unknown consequences,’ Gohmert told the committee. ‘Some of us have outlined these questions in a letter8 to VRBPAC but have not received any answers, and I pose some of them here.’ Gohmert said:
‘Number 1, why has the FDA refused to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from preapproval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data and other post-approval manufacturer data?
Number 2, what is the cardiac risk factor in administrating these COVID vaccines to children?
Number 3, world-renowned immunologists have raised concerns about potential antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, resulting from COVID vaccines, and since ADE was a problem in prior unrelated respiratory vaccine trials, we need to know what studies, if any, the FDA has that it’s used regarding ADE from COVID vaccines in children 5 and under or any age group. Can the FDA affirm there’s no risk of ADE for vaccinated children?
Number 4, if widely approved among children 5 and under, how many lives, if any, does FDA estimate will be saved next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] system, how will FDA evaluate serious vaccine injuries versus serious COVID outcomes?
Number 5, is it possible the proposed COVID vaccines in young children could create increased risk in future novel COVID variants?
Number 6, why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? This change significantly lowers the expected benefits from any COVID vaccination for young children and it’s of particular concern given that over 70% of that age cohort already is seropositive.’
Gohmert said these questions and 13 other questions posed by lawmakers are critical and deserve answers from the FDA and VRBPAC prior to any EUA with the ‘accompanied protection for liability for all harm done.'”
Trial Showed COVID Jab Increases Infection Risk in Babies
In the video above, you can see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, with a forced grin on her face, claiming “rigorous scientific review” has proven the shots to be safe and effective in infants and young children.
The video also features excerpts from a video in which Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist and “lover of data,”9 reviews what this “rigorous scientific review” actually found and what the FDA and CDC aren’t telling you. To hear Craig’s full summary of how Pfizer twisted its clinical data for young children, check out the video below.
Craig points out that of the 4,526 children, aged 6 months to 4 years, who participated in Pfizer’s trial, 3,000 didn’t make it to the end of the trial. Why did two-thirds of the children drop out? Oftentimes, this happens when side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Moreover:
•Six of the children, aged 2 to 4 years, in the vaccinated group were diagnosed with “severe COVID,” compared to just one in the placebo group. So, what this actually shows is that the likelihood the shot is causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it’s preventing it.
•The only child who required hospitalization for COVID was also in the “vaccinated” group.
•In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 of the children in the vaccinated group and 13 of the unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. That means the children’s risk of developing symptoms of COVID within the first three weeks of the first dose actually increased by 30%. These data were ignored.
Between doses two and three, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too was ignored. After the third dose, incidence of COVID was again raised in the vaccine group, and this was ignored as well.
In the end, they only counted three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They literally ignored 97% of all the COVID cases that occurred during the trial to conclude that the shots were “effective” in preventing COVID.
•While they claim the triple-dose regimen reduced COVID, 12 of the children actually caught COVID twice in the two-month follow-up, and 11 of them were vaccinated.
•The confidence interval for Pfizer’s jab is -370% at the lower end of the 95%, which suggests children who get the jab are nearly four times more likely of getting sick with COVID than their unvaccinated peers.10
Unscientific and Unethical Behavior
As reported by The Defender:11
“Combining all ages together, Pfizer said its three-dose regimen for children 6 months to 5 years old was 80% effective at preventing illness from the Omicron variant based on preliminary data from its clinical trial.
The 80% number was calculated 30 days after the third dose. As noted by committee members, the efficacy number is likely to go down after 30 days and post-approval monitoring was suggested.
Moderna said its two-shot vaccine was about 51% effective against infection from Omicron in children under 2, and about 37% among kids 2 to 5 years old, citing different efficacy numbers than what was reported by the company in March.
In a March 23 press release, Moderna said its vaccine in the 6-month to 2-year age group was only 43.7% effective. In the older age group, the company said its vaccine was 37.5% effective. A top official at Moderna has already said a booster will be necessary.”
As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, vaccinating infants and children who have no need for the shots and don’t benefit from them, just to “protect” adults, violates medical ethics. And since those who are jabbed still readily transmit the virus, the children are actually put at risk for no reason at all.
It’s All About Securing Indemnification
So, how can we explain the irrational behavior of the FDA and CDC? Why don’t any of the data matter? Why doesn’t the science matter? Why don’t any of the red flags matter? And why are they handing out EUAs when the criteria for EUA are satisfied? Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get EUA:
- There must be an emergency
- A vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective
- The known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product
- There can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines)
Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained, yet here we are. COVID, by any reasonable measurement, is no longer an emergency, there are plenty of adequate alternative treatments, and the potential benefits in no way, shape or form outweigh the potential risks — especially not in infants and children under 5. That’s three out of four criteria that, clearly, are not met.