Make sure you scroll down below the video. I added a transcript and copied and pasted data from the FDA Briefing Document to add support. Dr. Craig is not lying.
The FDA document is the Emergency Use Authorization request for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for use in children 6 months through 4 years of age that was decided by the FDA on June 17, 2022.
Chief Nerd published BOMBSHELL: Dr. Clare Craig Exposes How Pfizer Twisted Their Clinical Trial Data for Young Children.
I’m Dr. Clare Craig. I’m a diagnostic pathologist, and I’m co-chair of the HART Group Health Advisory and Recovery Team. I want to take you through the evidence that Pfizer just presented to the FDA on the six-month to four-year-old children.
There’s an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me, and I think it will shock you too.
The trial recruited 4526 children aged from 6 months to 4 years old. Three thousand of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That is a huge number, two-thirds of them.
The tables below show the massive reduction in the 6-23 months old “Dose 3 available efficacy population” from 1,178 to 376. Only 31.9% remained.
Source: VRBPAC Page 21For the 2-4 years, there was a decrease from 1,835 “Dose 1 all-available efficacy population” to 589 Dose 3 Evaluable Efficacy Population. Only 32.1% remained.
Why such a significant decrease? Did the parents pull out their children? Did the vaccinated children develop unacceptable side effects?
Why is there this drop-off? That needs to be answered, and without an answer, on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void.
So what did the trial show? Well, they defined severe COVID as children who had a slightly raised heart rate or a few more breaths per minute. There were six children aged 2 to 4 who had severe covid in the vaccine group but only one in the placebo group.
So, on that basis, the likelihood that this vaccine is actually causing COVID is higher than the likelihood that it isn’t.
The was actually one child who was hospitalized in this trial. They had a fever and a seizure. They had been vaccinated. (Page 37)
So now let’s turn to what they defined as severe COVID and what they did was to utterly twist the data.
Context: Severe COVID is someone requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, continuous intravenous blood pressure raising medicines, dialysis, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Pfizer lowered the bar and defined severe COVID as someone with an increase in heart rate and breathing. By doing that, Pfizer could show more “severe” COVID cases in their trial. If a vaccinated participant survived “severe COVID,” it makes their shot appear more effective.
They vaccinated the children and they waited three weeks after the first dose before the second dose.
In that three-week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got COVID and only 13 in the placebo group which worked out as a 30% increased chance of catching COVID in that three-week period if you were vaccinated. So they ignored that data.
And then there was an eight-week gap between the second dose and the third dose, where again, children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arm. They ignored that data.
Then was then several weeks after the third dose which they also ignored, which meant that in the end, they had ignored 97% of the COVID that occurred during the trial and they looked at tiny numbers – so tiny.
The tables below show the number of the vaccinated children 6-23 months of age who had COVID after different doses of vaccination (red circles). Total COVID cases after vaccination is 196 vaccinated vs. 116 in placebo. Blue circles show vaccine efficacy.
There is a reason why the Table title is “First COVID-19 Occurrence”. That’s because some children got COVID again!
Below are the COVID for the 2 to <5 years of age. COVID cases in vaccinated are 254 vs. 184 in the placebo group.
In the end, they were comparing three children in the vaccine arm who had COVID with seven in the placebo arm and they said that this showed the vaccine was effective.
So they measured how many of these children actually managed to get COVID twice in the two-month follow-up period. And there were 12 children who had COVID twice and all but one of them were vaccinated, mostly with three doses.
So you have to wonder what on earth they’re thinking when the claim of reduction in COVID was only four children and here we have 12 children who got COVID twice. Eleven of them were vaccinated. (page 38)
So let’s just recap. They recruited 4500 children, 3000 dropped out and in the end, they are (Pfizer) claiming that this vaccine works on the basis of three cases (in the study group) who got COVID versus seven in the control group. A difference of four children only. And all of these on a backdrop of a disease that doesn’t affect children and with no long-term safety data.
We have to ask how an ethics committee could have approved this trial in babies. Babies are not at risk from COVID and now we have Pfizer who is presenting this as evidence to the FDA in order to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization.
Emergency Use Authorization is meant for a situation where there’s a risk of serious injury or death. No children under five are not at risk of serious injury or death from COVID. In fact, in their own trial, they had to make up other ways of measuring the problem because there was no serious injury or death.
Now originally these products were sold as actually also reducing transmission. Now it would be completely unethical to use young children as a human shield but we now know that they don’t reduce transmission. The WHO has stopped claiming that they reduce transmission. (so does CDC) So that argument doesn’t apply either.
Now if we just turn to safety, what they did is they followed up the patients for six weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them. So the children who got the placebo, and the control group were followed for an average of six weeks and then given the vaccine. So that’s your safety control. Gone forever.
The fact that they vaccinated both groups meant that any adverse events after that would have no more control group to compare. Pfizer can now claim that those adverse events are “normal” and acceptable.
The fact that this trial existed at all is unbelievable. There are other issues in there that I haven’t highlighted. but those are the key ones. Parents should be demanding that the decision-makers explain themselves.
Truth heals. Lies kill. Don’t Get Sick!
Knowledge about Covid-19 is rapidly evolving. Stay current by subscribing. Feel free to share and like.
Please consider donating to show your support if you find value in this website.
Related:
- Questions about the COVID-19 Pfizer “vaccine” trial for babies and toddlers
- The FDA approved COVID-19 shots for babies and toddlers, which is wrong!
- Study shows obesity worsens pregnancy outcomes in maternal COVID-19
- Mothers with young children were mostly harmed by the Melbourne lockdown
- COVID-19 during pregnancy follows a routine clinical course for the mother and her baby
- USA study: Adults and children with the Omicron variant have milder COVID-19
- COVID-19 infections among infants: Symptoms and who gets hospitalized
- USA study: Adults and children with the Omicron variant have milder COVID-19
- COVID-19 in children 0-17 years old have a low risk of death and hospitalization
- Children 5-11 Years Old have Mild COVID-19
- Asymptomatic or mild symptomatic COVID-19 elicits effective and long-lasting antibody responses in children and adolescents
Reference:
Source: The VRBPAC Briefing Document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Amendment for Use in Children 6 Months Through 4 Years of Age. June 15, 2022
© 2018 – 2022 Asclepiades Medicine, L.L.C. All Rights Reserved
DrJesseSantiano.com does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.