Was the data Pfizer sent, really this bad?
If it wasn’t, it should be easy for the FDA and or Pfizer to reply. If it was this extraordinarily rigged to “find” some infinitesimally tiny benefit among the acres of null and even bad results, we have to ask, does anyone care about babies anymore? If the data Pfizer sent is this awful, no one is even trying to hide the corruption. Does the FDA care about its own reputation?
According to Dr Clare Craig (in the video below) — the evidence that Pfizer sent to the FDA is dubious in the extreme: As she tells it — the trial recruited 4,526 children aged from 6 months to 4 years, but as many as 3,000 did not finish the trial. On that basis alone, she says, “the trial should be deemed null and void.” This trial data is so they can get EUA – Emergency Use Authorisation, but they defined severe covid as a raised heartrate and an increased breathing rate — which hardly sounds like an emergency, or something severe. In the end there were only six children age 2 – 4 that had “severe covid” and who were vaccinated and 1 child that had severe covid that was not vaccinated. There was one child that was hospitalized — they were vaccinated.
In terms of pure cases of Covid — Dr Clare Craig describes a process that filters out nearly every case there was. They vaccinated the babies and children and waited 3 weeks after the first dose for the second dose — but in that time, 34 children got covid who were vaccinated and only 13 got covid in the placebo group. It worked out as a 30% increased chance of getting covid if they were vaccinated. They ignored that data. It takes a few weeks for the vaccines to generate antibodies, so, the vaccinated were not really vaccinated. We understand the reason, but it doesn’t change that if there is an increased risk during that time, it says something.
Then there was an eight week gap between the second and third dose. Again, according to Dr Craig, plenty of children were catching covid during that period, but Pfizer and the FDA ignored that data. They filtered out 97% of the incidents of children catching covid. They looked at tiny numbers left over after all the waiting periods. They claim the vaccines work on the basis of 3 covid cases versus 7 after ignoring all the other cases. There were even 12 children who caught covid twice in the two month follow up period and 11 were vaccinated, mostly with three doses.
Babies are not at risk of Covid… and they have no long term safety data. How is it that an EUA – an Emergency Use Authorisation — even applies to children? The whole cost benefit ratio is vastly different for a one year old to a ninety year old. The long term risks, whatever they are, are so long.
The placebo group was vaccinated — on average — after only six weeks and the trial was unblinded, so there is no long term control group.
As Dr Craig says: “Parents should be demanding that the decision-makers explain themselves.” Not just parents, but where is the media, the Professors, the Doctors, and the elected representatives? Where is the UN Humans Rights Commission, on an issue that actually matters?
I seem to recall that it was important for Pfizer to get approval for all ages. It’s not just the bit of extra market share from opening up a new “market” but something much bigger — something about getting approval in every age qualifies the product or indemnifies it in a whole new way. Search engines naturally, are not making that easy to find right now. Perhaps a reader can help explain why — legally — it was important to get the EUA in the USA extended to all ages. The risk they are taking with this shows the stakes must be very high. They know how bad this data is.
h/t Scott of the Pacific.