In gentle of the US announcement that kids aged six months to 4 years will be vaccinated towards Covid 19, TCW is carrying three posts on this extremely essential matter at the moment.
ON Monday Mark Steyn picked up on the story of YouTube banning of what he described as Dr Clare Craig’s ‘video translation into plain English’ of Pfizer’s vaccine trial knowledge for infants from six months to 4 years previous. Dr Craig is a pathologist and co-chair of HART, a gaggle of medical doctors and teachers involved that various views on Covid coverage are being suppressed.
You may view Steyn’s interview right here the place Dr Craig succinctly lays out what the science is – or quite isn’t – that claims a six-month-old child wants a Covid vaccine. Put together to be shocked. The USA’s Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) has simply authorised the ultimate ‘vaccination’ or toxin jabbing rollout for the various thousands and thousands of US infants on the foundation of a spurious comparability of simply three vaccinated kids with seven unvaxxed. You actually couldn’t make this up. No matter has occurred to scientific requirements and ethics? You may see what Dr Craig herself has to say on the matter right here, in the event you quick ahead to circa 36 minutes in to the beginning of this part of the programme:
Although her movie was banned by the ever extra egregious YouTube, Clare’s full and unique video can nonetheless be considered right here:
In it she takes us by means of the proof that Pfizer has introduced to the FDA on these very younger kids. It shocked her. She says, ‘I feel it’ll shock you too’.
When, a 12 months in the past, Belinda Brown analysed what was already damning proof of the printed Pfizer youngster trial knowledge for TCW, what we didn’t know was the fabric now revealed by Dr Craig.
First, of the recruited 4,526 kids aged from six months to 4 years, 3,000 didn’t make it to the top of the trial. As Clare says, this can be a big quantity.
‘Two-thirds of them. Why was there this drop-off? That must be answered. And with out a solution to that, on that foundation alone this trial needs to be deemed null and void.’
She goes on to ask what the trial confirmed. ‘Effectively, they outlined extreme Covid as kids who had a barely raised coronary heart charge or just a few extra breaths per minute. There have been six kids aged two to 4 who had extreme Covid within the vaccine group however just one within the placebo group. So, on that foundation the probability that this vaccine is definitely inflicting extreme Covid is larger than the probability that it isn’t.’
She factors out that one youngster was hospitalised within the trial. He had a fever and a seizure. He had been vaccinated.
Then she seems to be at what they outlined as ‘any’ Covid, saying what they did was ‘to completely twist the info’:
‘They vaccinated the kids they usually waited three weeks after the primary dose earlier than the second dose. In that three-week interval, 34 of the vaccinated kids received Covid and solely 13 within the placebo group, which labored out as a 30 per cent elevated probability of catching Covid in that three-week interval in the event you have been vaccinated. So that they ignored that knowledge.
‘After which there was an eight-week hole between the second dose and the third dose, the place once more loads of kids have been getting Covid within the vaccine arm. So that they ignored that knowledge.
‘There have been then seven days after the third dose, which additionally they ignored.
‘Which meant that in the long run that they had ignored 97 per cent of the Covid that occurred in the course of the trial they usually simply checked out tiny numbers – so tiny.’
Her conclusion? Ultimately they have been evaluating three kids within the vaccine arm of the trial who had Covid with seven within the placebo arm, they usually stated that this confirmed the vaccine was efficient.
You may learn HART’s full evaluation of the trial right here.
