Covid overlords have cleared the way for children from 6 months to under 5 years of age to get the Covid injection despite what one critic charged is "significant VAERS evidence that children will die or be maimed by these experimental innoculations."
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday expanded use of the shots from Pfizer Inc./BioNTech SE and from Moderna Inc. in children as young as 6 months. The injections are expected to begin in the coming week.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said: "We know millions of parents and caregivers are eager to get their young children vaccinated, and with today’s decision, they can. I encourage parents and caregivers with questions to talk to their doctor, nurse, or local pharmacist to learn more about the benefits of vaccinations and the importance of protecting their children by getting them vaccinated.”
Independent journalist John Davidson, host of the Broken Truth podcast, promptly filed a complaint against Walensky after she signed off on the jab for kids ages 6 months to under 5.
"There is no indication based on the available information that these vaccines will save more lives than they will take," Davidson said in the complaint filed with the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine.
"There is significant VAERS evidence that children will die or be maimed by these experimental innoculations."
#Fathers stick up for their kids. This is a medical license board complaint. The boards must take these complaints seriously. Please feel free to use our #FDA Meeting Mashups to get FDA quotes for your own complaints. #CDC #YouDidNothing @Jikkyleaks pic.twitter.com/vVp0HQPaTn
— Broken Truth 🐭 (@BrokenTruthTV) June 19, 2022
"If you listen, the FDA will tell you all you need to know. There is no risk to children and they’re going to inject the vaccine in them anyways," Davidson noted.
Related: Despite growing outrage, Team Biden moves full speed ahead on jabbing kids under 5, June 10, 2022
In an analysis of the FDA's decision on jabbing young children, James Lyon-Weller wrote on substack.com: "What members of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee saw and heard during Wednesday’s meeting should have stopped them from recommending authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months — but it didn’t."
Weller listed several reasons the vax should not have been approved to children as young as 6:
• They proceeded for recommendation of approval based on a guess that three doses will correct negative efficacy. Pfizer has a serious problem: Its two-dose data reflected the reality I’ve been reporting about (and predicted) since the Israeli and Barnstable County data came out: the confidence interval for their estimate of the number of cases prevented by three doses of their vaccine points, if anything, to negative efficacy (-369.1 to 99.6). The confidence interval crosses zero. The problem is not just that the result is based on a ridiculously small number of data points.
• The problem also is that this result confirms (validates) the result of the two-dose vaccine. Their measure of vaccine efficacy was only 14.5% seven days after the second dose the confidence intervals crossed zero, so they were not statistically significant.
• They relied on proxy outcome measures (neutralizing antibodies). Neutralizing antibodies sound good, but they are the wrong antibodies. Lyon-Weller predicted the entire vaccination program is going to drive COVID-19 numbers up across the board routinely and on a regular, ongoing basis due to antibody-dependent enhancement.
• No one raised the issue of failure to meet FDA’s required 50% efficacy. Moderna and Pfizer’s own endpoint data fall short of the 50% mark. Pfizer decreased its dose and this seems to have decreased the reported adverse events.
• Their numbers are ridiculously small. Pfizer showed that an estimate of 80.3% vaccine efficacy is based on – get this – 7 cases in the placebo group and 3 in the vaccine group. Notice the emblazoned 80% — as if that data point has any basis in reality.
• They may have broken the rules of engagement for open meetings. Any reasonable person would expect that public open meetings held by organizations such as VRBPAC would know and follow administrative rules for open meetings. How is it then that only VPBPAC members managed to ask questions and voice their opinions on how necessary (or not) COVID-19 vaccination in children might be AFTER the votes were made to approve the vaccine for children under 5? Dr. Meryl Nass was denied an opportunity to speak in the public comment period, yet the same pro-vaccine mother was able to speak two days in a row. Thus, the public may have been denied the opportunity to contribute their comments. This is being looked at by lawyers. If it is true the FDA broke the rules of open meetings, then any ethical judge would rule this vote to recommend is null and void ab initio.
Notice the emblazoned 80% — as if that data point has any basis in reality.
Team Biden is also pushing for everyone over the age of 5 to get a booster shot.
During a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Thursday, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul asked Team Biden Covid czar Anthony Fauci if he was "aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization or death for children who take a booster?"
Fauci ducked and dodged Paul’s question before saying: “So there are no studies and Americans should all know this. There are no studies on children showing a reduction in hospitalization or death with taking a booster, the only studies that were permitted, the only studies that were presented were antibody studies so they say if we give you a booster, now, a lot of scientists would question whether or not that’s proof of efficacy of a vaccine.”
“If I give you 10, or if I give a patient 10 MRNA vaccines and they make protein each time, or they make an antibody each time, is that proof that we should give 10 boosters, Dr. Fauci?” Paul asked Fauci.
“No,” answered Fauci. “I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration Senator Paul,” as the testimony became increasingly heated, at one point causing Paul to exclaim, “That’s not science, that’s conjecture!”
The government recommends a booster for children despite Fauci admittedly not having any evidence to support their decision.
"That's not science. That's conjecture. And we should not be making public policy on it." pic.twitter.com/fbZgBgN85Q — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) June 16, 2022
Following the FDA announcement on Friday, Team Biden wasted no time pushing what many scientists say is an unnecessary and potentially harmful vaccine on young children.
“We have come a long way in our fight against Covid,” Joe Biden said after the FDA approval was granted. “Parents will finally be able to get their youngest kids the protection of a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine.”
Related: Leading cardiologist warns: ‘16,000 kids injured by the vaccine’; Emerging ‘public health threat’, December 29, 2021
“We know many parents in the U.S. have been eagerly awaiting an authorized vaccine for their children under 5 and we are proud to now offer them a vaccine option with a favorable safety profile,” Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla said.
Moderna Chief Executive Stephane Bancel said caregivers will now “finally have a way to safeguard against Covid risks in classroom and daycare settings.”
For young children, Moderna’s vaccine consists of a primary series of two doses given four weeks apart. The FDA also cleared use of a third dose of the Moderna vaccine, taken at least one month after the second dose, for certain people with weakened immune systems.
Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine requires three doses for young children, the first two given three weeks apart followed by a third dose at least eight weeks later.
About . . . . Intelligence . . . . Membership
