So much new information has come forth in the past year about the efficacy and danger of the experimental Covid shots. When they first came out, we were told that if everyone got the shot, we could get back to normal. Those that were leery of taking the shots (including doctors, scientists, nurses, firemen, policemen, and those who did research other than listening just to the mainstream media and government sources) were told that they were the problem, and that they were going to die. There was no talk about getting healthy, losing weight, taking enough Vitamin D to protect from all viruses, taking other nutraceuticals and using safe and effective early treatment drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. I have previous posts explaining the efficacy of these drugs, and I have seen them work miracles, including in my own family.
It is now obvious to most people that these shots did not work as promised*. They don’t prevent transmission nor infection, and most previously vaccinated people have come down with a variant of Omicron. And some are getting very sick. Did the shots do something to people’s immune systems that make them sicker? What about the myriad adverse affects, some devastating, that some people have experienced? What about the deaths? Sudden Adult Death Syndrome is on the rise. Why? Is the CDC and FDA researching these events? Why are the safety signals in the official government database (VAERS) being ignored?
*For those that don’t remember that the vaccines were sold as preventing transmission and infection, please watch this video!
My concern now is for the children. Covid is not a dangerous disease for most children – the flu kills many children. The only children who have died of covid have confirmed co-morbidities and it is not clear what their actual cause of death was. Most children have had very mild covid and their natural immunity is protective.
This opinion piece in Newsweek is worth the read to hear other opinions about giving children these shots:
by MARTY MAKARY , PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; June 10, 2022
People don’t trust the CDC. Here’s one example illustrating why. Two weeks ago, with no outcomes data on COVID-19 booster shots for 5-to-11-year-olds, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vigorously recommended the booster for all 24 million American children in that age group. The CDC cited a small Pfizer study of 140 children that showed boosters elevated their antibody levels—an outcome known to be transitory.
When that study concluded, a Pfizer spokesperson said it did not determine the efficacy of the booster in the 5-to-11-year-olds. But that didn’t matter to the CDC. Seemingly hoping for a different answer, the agency put the matter before its own kangaroo court of curated experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
I listened to the meeting, and couldn’t believe what I heard. At times, the committee members sounded like a group of marketing executives. Dr. Beth Bell of the University of Washington said “what we really need to do is to be as consistent and clear and simple as possible,” pointing out that the committee needed “a consistent recommendation which is simple.”
Other committee members similarly emphasized the importance of a universal booster message that applies to all age groups. Dr. David Kimberlin, editor of the American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book, speaking on his own behalf, said “Americans are yearning for, are crying out for a simpler way for looking at this pandemic.” He suggested that not recommending boosters for young children would create confusion that “could also bleed over to 12-to-17-year-olds, and even the adult population.”
The committee also debated how hard to push the booster recommendation, discussing whether the CDC should say that 5-to-11-year-olds “may” get a booster versus “should” get it.
Exhibiting classic medical paternalism, committee member Dr. Oliver Brooks of the Watts Healthcare Corporation said “I think may is confusing and may sow doubt,” adding “if we say should more people will get boosted versus may, then we may have more data that helps us really define where we’re going.” Dr. Brooks was essentially suggesting that boosting in this age group would be a clinical trial conducted without informed consent.
That doesn’t sound like following the science to me.
ACIP’s medical establishment representatives were on hand for the meeting. They included members of the trade association Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. Sandra Fryhofer, an internist representing the AMA, summarized the tone of the many legacy stakeholders present with a passionate plea: “I urge the committee to support a ‘should’ recommendation for this third dose.”
The committee promptly approved the booster for young children by an 11-1 vote, with one obstetrician abstaining because he missed some of the discussion.
The one dissenting vote came from Dr. Keipp Talbot of Vanderbilt University, who courageously said vaccines, while extremely effective, “are not without their potential side effects.” She questioned the sustainability of vaccinating the population every six months. Many experts agree with her, but they don’t have a platform to speak. In fact, nearly 40 percent of rural parents say their pediatricians do not recommend the primary vaccine series for children. Those pediatricians were not represented on the committee.
The CDC has a history of appointing like-minded loyalists to its committees. Last year, it dismissed a member of its vaccine safety group, Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kuldorff, for dissenting from its decision to pause the J&J vaccine. A year ago, Joe Biden appointed party devotees to his COVID-19 task force. Reaching a consensus is easier that way.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory committee, comprised of the nation’s top vaccine experts, have made similar public statements as Dr. Talbot. But the committee was not involved in approving boosters for children. The FDA actually bypassed it days prior—the third time over the last year that the FDA made sweeping and controversial authorizations without convening its vaccine experts.
Most remarkably, it didn’t seem to matter to the CDC that 75.2 percent of children under age 11 already have natural immunity, according to a CDC study that concluded in February. Natural immunity is certainly much more prevalent today, given the ubiquity of the Omicron variant since February. CDC data from New York and California demonstrated that natural immunity was 2.8 times more effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times more effective in preventing COVID infection compared to vaccination during the Delta wave. These findings are consistent with dozens of other clinical studies. Yet natural immunity has consistently and inexplicably been dismissed by the medical establishment.
When the CDC voted, director Dr. Rochelle Walensky declared that the booster dose is safe for kids ages 5-11. Yes, the complication rate is very low, and we think it’s safe, but how can anyone know from only a short-term follow-up of 140 children? The more appropriate assessment is that we believe it’s safe but we can’t be sure yet from the data we have so far. Unfortunately, the strength of the CDC recommendation to boost all children 5 and up will trigger some schools and summer camps to blindly mandate a third dose for healthy children who don’t need it.
Instead of pushing boosters on healthy children who are already immune, public health officials should focus on recommending the primary COVID vaccine series to high-risk children who don’t have any immunity.
Public health officials are expected to recommend COVID vaccines for children under 5 as soon as June 21st, despite the fact that the vast majority of children already have natural immunity. In a recent Kaiser survey, only 18 percent of parents said they were eager to vaccinate their child in that age group.
If the CDC is curious as to why people aren’t listening to its recommendations, it should consider how it bypassed experts to put the matter before a Kangaroo court of like-minded loyalists. The Biden administration should insist that we return to the standard process of putting all major vaccine decisions before a vote of the FDA’s leading vaccine experts.
The Biden administration promised to listen to the scientists. But the truth is, it only seems to listen to the ones who say what it wants to hear.
Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. (@MartyMakary) is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of The New York Times Bestselling Book, The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How To Fix It.
And since this article was published, the CDC has recommended these shots for babies 6 months old to 4 years old. These is absolutely NO benefit to these children, only risk. Please do more research before subjecting your babies and toddlers to these dangerous shots.
by World Council of Health – June 15, 2022
Dr. Kat Lindley, a board-certified family physician based in Texas and member of the World Council for Health Steering Committee, just spoke during the FDA’s June 15 Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting. The meeting was called to discuss Pfizer-BioNTech’s EUA request for children aged 6 months through 4 years.
Good afternoon. I’m Dr. Kat Lindley, member of the Steering Committee of the World Council for Health.
I have no conflicts of interest.
CDC data from February show that about 74.2% of children have had covid already. Over 150 studies show that natural immunity is superior.
The infection fatality rate under 5 years old is 0.1 in 100,000 — or one in a million.
The risk of the shot in the already immune is higher than one in a million. Both Pfizer and Moderna expressly eliminated those that were naturally immune from their studies. They did this to avoid the hyperimmune response and possible death.
Vaccinating the already immune puts them at serious risk for a hyperimmune response. That means you will be voting for some children to have a severe adverse reaction and possibly death if you vaccinate the already immune. This is bad medicine. There is zero reward, only risk.
These vaccines are not medically necessary or clinically indicated.
VAERS show children aged birth to 18 who have been vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s vaccines have had severe life-threatening adverse reactions, such as myocarditis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, seizures and more severe adverse reactions or death.
An article by House and all published May 22, 2022 in American Academy of Pediatrics (safety of c19 vaccinations in US children ages 5-11) shows:
- Myocarditis 2.2 per million cases
- Seizures 7.6 per million cases
I will share two cases seen by my colleagues.
14 yo male double vaccinated with Pfizer vaccine had recent hx of chest pain on exertion, initial echocardiogram and ECG normal, troponin 22,000 increasing to 48,000 in 6 hours. Cardiac MRI with gadolinium showed transmural enhancement consistent with myocarditis.
13 yo female first Pfizer dose last August had 1st seizure within 30 days, got a second vaccine in December had another seizure, had 3rd booster and now has 4-6 seizures a day. She was an active soccer player and a good student, now unable to play sports or attend class in person.
We have no long-term safety data in any of these studies. The risks clearly outweigh the benefits. The VAERS reports 28,312 deaths so far in all age groups. When will we say this is enough?
What is the magic number that will make a cut off and stop pushing these vaccines? Is it 50,000, 100,000, a million.
When do we say we cannot give these to our children? Their recovery rate is over 99.9985%
These are healthy children. And the risk does outweigh the benefits.
These vaccines are not medically necessary or clinically indicated!!
Thank you for your time.
FDA Advisors Unanimously Endorse Pfizer, Moderna COVID Shots for Infants and Young Kids, Ignore Pleas to ‘First Do No Harm’
“All the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), after advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today voted 21-0 to recommend Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for infants and young children.
Please read the above article for much more information about the controversy of this decision.
This 4 min video should be mandatory viewing for all parents considering vaccinating their kids. Dr. Clare Craig from the HART group explains the clinical trial used to justify vaccinating kids. She was appalled.
The only conclusion you can draw after watching this video is that the people running the FDA, CDC and the members of the outside committees approving these vaccines are either completely incompetent or totally bought off. [What could be another explanation for ignoring the reported adverse affects?]
Everyone should watch this video. It should be required viewing for any parent who is considering vaccinating their child.
Thanks to Steve Kirsch for sharing.