While the COVID-19 drug has done little at stopping the coronavirus from spreading throughout the world, the Biden administration continues their efforts to promote the jab and even asked for more funding. On top of that, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have requested that the drug be authorized for children as young as six months old. On Friday, Pfizer request was granted, as the FDA announced, “Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 to include use in children down to six months of age.” Just the latest request to be accepted, Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist, explained how the data given to the FDA was highly altered.
Only looking at the trial and data being presented, Dr. Craig didn’t attack Pfizer or the FDA, but instead focused on the facts. In the video below, she said, “The trial recruited 4526 children aged from six months to four years old. 3000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That is a huge number, two thirds of them, why was there this drop off? That needs to be answered. And without an answer to that, 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 two to four 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 severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it isn’t.”
Surprisingly, that wasn’t all that was tailored for the FDA as the doctor added, “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. So they ignored that data. There 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 just looked at tiny numbers.”
As for FDA, they appeared thrilled as FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf declared, “Many parents, caregivers and clinicians have been waiting for a vaccine for younger children and this action will help protect those down to six months of age. As we have seen with older age groups, we expect that the vaccines for younger children will provide protection from the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, such as hospitalization and death. Those trusted with the care of children can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these COVID-19 vaccines and can be assured that the agency was thorough in its evaluation of the data.”
The entire FDA briefing document with data and facts can be viewed here.
Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.