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
>>>>> Click Here <<<<<
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.
The short answer to the question, "Why are the CDC and FDA acting so
irrationally?" is that both agencies are corrupt to the core and are no
longer in the business of protecting public health. They are securing
profits for the drug industry, and getting EUA for infants and young
children is a crucial step toward securing permanent legal indemnity for
the drugmakers.
As explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the short video clip above,
they 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).
This is the group that decides which vaccines are to be added to the
childhood vaccination schedule. 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.
The only way to break that indemnity is by proving the vaccine maker
knew about the safety issues and withheld that information. You can
learn more about this indemnification process in "The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids."
So, the end goal is permanent immunity against liability for injury
and death from the COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there, they
first need the EUA to cover all children. After that, the ACIP approval
becomes more or less a matter of rubber stamping. This is why they're
playing Russian roulette with the health of infants and young children.
Murder Has No Statute of Limitation
That said, if fraud can be proven, all indemnity falls by the
wayside, and there's no statute of limitation when it comes to murder,
which some insist is what's happening here.
The video above features "To The Lifeboats" podcaster Sam Dodson's
comments to the FDA VRBPAC during its open public hearing session to
approve the COVID jabs for children between the ages of 6 months and 5
years. In a rapid-fire manner, he reviews several data points that ought
to have put a halt to these injections, but didn't; several instances
where the FDA knew harm was occurring from these shots, or would occur,
and they did nothing.
Another public comment was submitted by an as-yet unidentified
individual. The submitted comment was provided to and reposted on Coquin
de Chien's Substack. Here are some select pieces:12
"This comment is NOTICE of possible criminal
liability to Lauren K. Roth and members of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee who owe duties of care,
diligence, good faith, and loyalty in recommending 'for' or 'against'
the EUA amendment for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in children 6 months through
4 years of age.
Only two deaths are listed herein to establish
knowledge. If the amendment is approved, it will have been done by
committee members 'knowing' of felony crimes in context. Your
investigation of these deaths should include death certificates, autopsy
records, witness interviews, and immunization records.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2022 SFN 5980 is a
7yo girl died January 18, 2022 listed as died from U071 'COVID-19,' B49
'unspecified mycosis,' J450 'predominantly allergic asthma,' and R091
'pleurisy.'
VAERS_ID 2038120 is a 7yo girl in Massachusetts, who
received her 2nd dose 1/13/2022 and was reported to VAERS 1/15/2022.
PRIOR_VAX states, 'Severe nausea and vomiting from 5 min post
vaccination and for the next 8-10 hours.'
SYMPTOM_TEXT states, 'Spiked a 103 fever, severe
stomachache, has not had a bowel movement since the day before
vaccination, which makes today 3 days without one. First vaccine caused
severe nausea and vomiting from 5 minutes post injection and for the
next 8-10 hours.' This little girl suffered immeasurably 4 to 5 days as
her intestines shut down due likely to impeded blood vessels servicing
intestines.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2021 SFN 56611 is a
48yo man died 11/16/2021 listed as died from U071 'COVID-19' and E669
'OBESITY.' SFN 56611 is known to have died less than 24 hours after
inoculation.
In both cases, the Medical Examiners listed the cause
of death as 'COVID-19,' when it was clearly not COVID-19. And in both
cases, the Medical Examiners omitted listing causes Y590 'Viral
vaccines' and T881 'Other complications following immunization, not
elsewhere classified,' when these clearly were proximate and actual
causes.
Death certificates from the state of Massachusetts
are sent to the CDC, a federal entity. Thus, fraud on a state death
certificate is a federal crime as it affects federal death records.
Several federal felony crimes apply in this instance and are listed
below.
If you dismiss this NOTICE and recommend the EUA
amendment without first investigating these two deaths, you become
liable for inchoate crimes and the felony crime of 'misprision of
felony.' If a single person subsequently dies as a result of the
amendment, all the elements will have been satisfied for you to face
felony murder charges or involuntary manslaughter. Qualified immunity is
not a valid defense ...
There were found sixty likely C19 vaccine deaths in a
25-minute perusal of the 2021 and 2022 death certificates, which
extrapolates to hundreds, probably thousands of C19 vaccine deaths in
Massachusetts.
Refusal to investigate these fraudulent records is a
crime that, because of the felony murder aspect, has no statute of
limitations. Five, ten, or twenty years from now, if a federal
prosecutor were to learn of this NOTICE, he or she would have
significant evidence to bring charges for felony murder.
In summary, this NOTICE places you in a position
requiring you to investigate these deaths prior to recommending the
amendment. If you dismiss this NOTICE, you may be criminally liable for
involuntary manslaughter, felony murder, and a list of federal crimes
and inchoate crimes ... Comment Tracking Number l4d-m52d-ge4m."
Florida Bucks the Trend
My home state of Florida now stands out as the only U.S. state that
is recommending AGAINST the COVID jab for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds.
Parents can still get their infants jabbed if they want, but the
official state recommendation is not to do it, as there's simply no
scientific or logical rationale for doing so.
Florida also did not preorder any extra doses for this age group.13
In a June 18, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Robert Malone addressed the
latest EUA authorization for infants and young children, and applauded
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' decision to buck the trend. It's hard to
believe he is the only governor in the U.S. who resisted this murderous
threat to the children:14
"Have you looked at the VAERS data lately? The CDC
apparently has not. In the USA alone, there have been 831,801 adverse
events, of which 12,776 are life threatening. There have been 63,978
hospitalizations. There have been 13,293 deaths and 14,232 permanent
disabilities from these vaccines.
True, these are 'unverified' — but previous research
has shown that the VAERS system under-reported adverse events associated
with vaccines, not over-reported ... Then there are the international
post-vaccine adverse event summaries.15
The CDC, under Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) has now admitted16 that even though they had promised to analyze the VAERS data before advising about these vaccines for children, they did not.
The VAERS data were NOT taken into consideration
before the authorization of these genetic agents for babies and young
children. Frankly, this is shocking. So shocking, it is hard for me to
even write about it.
Now, approximately 430 children with other severe
illnesses have died with COVID in the last 2.5 years (that would be 172
per year). Plus there have been 2,600 hospitalizations of children, most
with underlying conditions — over that 2.5 year period. These numbers
show that even before Omicron, in the case of children, COVID is less
severe than flu ...
Omicron in children is much less severe. We know
this. The scientific evidence is clear. Yet the FDA goes back to data
from the DELTA variant when discussing the effects of this virus ...
Governor DeSantis again has it right. It is time to stop. Parents must
stop. The time is now to just say no."
Last but not least, if you’re still unsure whether the COVID shot is
the “right” choice for your child, please read through Dr. Byram
Bridle’s “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,”17
published by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. It goes through how the
shots work, what the known side effects are, results from the clinical
trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more.