Even as more disruptive data emerges, both Pfizer and Moderna are seeking Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for bilateral COVID boosters for children. Moderna seeks permission for children ages 6 to 17, while Pfizer’s shot is intended for children ages 5 to 11.1
According to Reuters,2 “The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…expects COVID-19 vaccine boosters that target circulating variants of the virus to be available for children ages 5-11 by mid-October.”
Moderna’s new bivalent COVID booster, mRNA-1273.222, sold under the trade name “Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron”, was licensed for adults over 18 years of age at the end of August 2022.3
In the United States, an adult dose contains 25 μg mRNA versus the original Wuhan strain and 25 μg mRNA targeting omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5.4 In the UK, the bivalent booster Moderna (mRNA-1273.214.1)5) contains mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and BA.1,6 An earlier Omicron strain is no longer in circulation.7And the8
The bivalent Pfizer enhancer also contains mRNA against the Wuhan strain, BA.4 and BA.5. The two bivalent boosters are only available to those who have already received the initial two-dose series and/or the monovalent booster at least two months prior.9
It is probably safe to assume that the same rule applies to children. As of late September 2022,10 38% of US children ages 5 to 11 who received an initial dose and 31% who received two doses. In the 12-17 year age group, 67% took one dose and 57% took two doses.11 It is possible that only people with two doses would be eligible for the bivalent booster, if authorized.
Bivalent reinforcers have only been tested in mice
For decades, the FDA has had additional safeguards in place for children who participate in medical research.12 With the COVID footage popping up, all of that has been thrown out the window, with babies now being used as medical guinea pigs with absolutely no guarantees.
It is really important to realize that these divalent enhancers have been reformulated using new, untested mRNA, yet they have only been tested in mice. Despite this, the Food and Drug Administration is now considering giving it to young children.
The efficacy of the Pfizer booster depends on the levels of antibodies in eight mice,13 which cannot tell you anything about the level of protection you may receive. Moderna’s booster is also dependent on antibody levels in mice, although the exact number is unknown.
When it comes to safety, there is not even a mouse data. Safety is assumed based on the original footage, although the safety data on those footage is incredibly shocking. In the short term, the original COVID snapshots between them resulted in 1417,671 adverse event reports (recorded using the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS as of September 16, 2022).14).
This includes 177,973 hospitalizations, 58,024 permanent disabilities, 34,107 life-threatening events, and 31,071 deaths. For children under 18 only, there are 55,733 reports of injuries and deaths.
If that’s not a cause for concern, I don’t know what is. It is definitely not “hard evidence” of safety! Furthermore, given the prevalence of underreporting, you have to multiply those already staggering numbers by an underreporting factor of 41 (or more) to get an idea of the true impact.
And if you still think the pediatric trials were exhaustive, understand that the monovalent Pfizer booster allowed for children ages 5 to 11, in May 2022, was based on antibody levels of only 67 children.15th This is so far from the standard of what is historically required to try drugs, it’s ridiculous.
1 in 800 absolute risk of serious side effects
While the VAERS data paint a clear picture of what’s at stake for parents who choose to inject their children with this genetically modified biological weapon, we also now have other data that shows just how bad the idea is.
recent study16And the17 In the journal Vaccine—co-authored by some of the world’s most trusted medical scientists, including Peter Doshi, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Services Research and senior editor at The BMJ—he looked at data from the FDA, Health Canada, Pfizer and Moderna trials. To assess the risks of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID footage.
They concluded that the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from mRNA shots was 1 in 800, which greatly exceeds the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 found in randomized controlled trials.
The risk that COVID infection poses to children is infinitesimal—particularly Omicron infection, which presents as a mild cold in most people—making a 1 in 800 risk of serious side effects unacceptable beyond description.
Statistics show that the hospitalization rate associated with COVID-19 among children aged 5 to 11 years is 0.0008%.18 Realistically, this is very close to zero and you can’t lower it any further. Additionally, as Clark County reported today,19 Pfizer Experiment Data20 [show] The chance of children dying from a shot is 107 times higher than dying from COVID-19.”
Other data confirming insecurity
Other data is also reviewed in a recent paper21And the22 by cardiologist Dr. Asim Malhotra, who initially recommended the doses but has since changed his mind about their safety. For example, Israeli data shows that post-vaccine myocarditis occurs at a rate of 1 in 6000. Data from male children and adolescents in Hong Kong found myocarditis at a rate of 1 in 2,700.
As the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation noted in the video above, myocarditis — a known effect of COVID-19 — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, due to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”
Norwegian data shows that the rate of serious adverse events after a vaccine is 1 in 1,000 after two doses of Pfizer, and the British Yellow Card System shows that 1 in 120 people who received at least one mRNA injection experienced an adverse event “exceeding a mild degree.” This Simply extraordinary risk ratios, and nothing the long-term effects could be, say 10 or 20 years from now.
Experience has shown that COVID Jab increases the risk of infection in children
According to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walinsky, a “rigorous scientific review” has proven that COVID shots are safe and effective in infants and young children.23 However, as detailed by Diagnostic Pathologist Dr. Claire Craig24 (Video above), Pfizer skewed its clinical data for young children to achieve the desired result.
Craig notes that of the 4,526 children, ages 6 months to 4 years, who took part in the Pfizer trial, 3,000 did not reach the end of the trial. Why two-thirds of children drop out? Oftentimes, this occurs when the side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were excluded, and “on this basis alone, this trial should be considered null and void,” Craig says. Furthermore it:
• Six of the children, ages 2 to 4, 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 that a shot will cause severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it will prevent it.
• The only child who needed hospitalization for COVID was also in the ‘vaccinated’ group.
• In the three weeks following the first dose, 34 children in the vaccinated group and 13 unvaccinated children were diagnosed with COVID. This means that children’s risk of developing COVID symptoms during the first 3 weeks of the first dose has already increased by 30%! This data has been discarded.
Between the second and third doses, there was an eight-week gap, and the vaccinated arm again experienced higher rates of COVID. This too has been ignored. After the third dose, the incidence of COVID was raised again in the vaccine group, and this was also ignored.
In the end, they counted only three cases of COVID in the vaccine arm and seven cases in the placebo group. They actually ignored 97% of all 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 contracted COVID twice in the two-month follow-up, and 11 of them were vaccinated.
• The confidence interval for a Pfizer strike is -370% at the lower end of the 95%, indicating that children who get vaccinated are four times more likely to contract COVID than their unvaccinated peers.25
Why target children who don’t need these shots?
Since COVID shots were first allowed for young children,26 The question why was raised. Certainly, this is not because children are at risk of dying from COVID.
The most likely explanation for the irrational behavior of the FDA and CDC is that they are helping drugmakers get mRNA shots into the childhood vaccination schedule, because that’s the quickest and easiest way to get lasting liability protection.
Once a vaccine is included in the children’s vaccination schedule, vaccine makers are permanently protected from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults. You can learn more about this compensation process atThe real reason they want to give COVID Jabs to kids. “
Therefore, the end goal will likely be to have permanent immunity to liability for injury and death from COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there they first need an EUA to cover all children. And since the FDA now allows the reconstituted mRNA shots to be formulated without additional testing, using the influenza vaccine form, they seem to want to make sure they annually update the boosters included in the EUA for children, too.
UK bans COVID Jab for children under 12
Meanwhile, the UK recently scrapped the COVID shot for children under 12, unless they were in a high-risk medical category. As the Guardian reported on September 6, 2022:27
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said children under five by the end of last month would not be vaccinated, in line with advice published by the British Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) in February 2022. UKHSA said the offer of COVID vaccines For healthy children between the ages of 5 and 11 it has always been temporary.”
Likewise, as of September 1, 2022, Denmark will no longer offer the COVID shot to children aged 5-17, citing the low risk posed by COVID infection.28 Children taking only one dose will not be required to have a second dose, and no boosters will be offered for this age group.
Sweden chose not to recommend the injection for children between 5 and 11 from the start, as the Swedish Health Agency felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks,29 So baby boosters aren’t likely to be a problem there either.
In the US, Florida has set a record refusal of all COVID shots for children under the age of five.30 Parents who wish to hit their young children are free to do so, but the state does not recommend it.
Protect your children from medical experiments
If you are still not sure if a COVID shot is the ‘correct’ choice for your child, please read on.COVID-19 Vaccines and Kids: A Scientists’ Guide for Parents“31 Published by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. It goes into how the injections work, what are the known side effects, the results from the clinical trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more.
Presumably, the side effects from the new bivalent enhancers are similar to those from the original shots,32 But there is no guarantee of that. It could be milder, or it could be worse.
In my view, the potential to get worse, for the simple reason that they present more than one type of mRNA. Will BA.4/BA.5 mRNA have different effects? Will they cause a cross-reaction? Who do you know? There is no data. At a minimum, if the negative effects of the original shots are any indication, there is every reason to suspect that divalent boosters would be just as dangerous.