In light of the US announcement that children aged six months to four years can be vaccinated against Covid 19, TCW is carrying three posts on this highly important topic today.
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 data for infants from six months to four years old. Dr Craig is a pathologist and co-chair of HART, a group of doctors and academics concerned that alternative views on Covid policy are being suppressed.
You can view Steyn’s interview here where Dr Craig succinctly lays out what the science is – or rather isn’t – that says a six-month-old baby needs a Covid vaccine. Prepare to be shocked. The USA’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just approved the final ‘vaccination’ or toxin jabbing rollout for the many millions of US infants on the basis of a spurious comparison of just three vaccinated children with seven unvaxxed. You really couldn’t make this up. Whatever has happened to scientific standards and ethics? You can see what Dr Craig herself has to say on the matter here, if you fast forward to circa 36 mins in to the start of this section of the programme:
Though her film was banned by the ever more egregious YouTube, Clare’s full and original video can still be viewed here:
In it she takes us through the evidence that Pfizer has presented to the FDA on these very young children. It shocked her. She says, ‘I think it will shock you too’.
When, a year ago, Belinda Brown analysed what was already damning evidence of the published Pfizer child trial data for TCW, what we did not know was the material now revealed by Dr Craig.
First, of the recruited 4,526 children aged from six months to four years, 3,000 did not make it to the end of the trial. As Clare says, this 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.’
She goes on to ask what the trial showed. ‘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.’
She points out that one child was hospitalised in the trial. He had a fever and a seizure. He had been vaccinated.
Then she looks at what they defined as ‘any’ Covid, saying what they did was ‘to utterly twist the data’:
‘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 per cent 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 plenty of children were getting Covid in the vaccine arm. So they ignored that data.
‘There were then seven days after the third dose, which they also ignored.
‘Which meant that in the end they had ignored 97 per cent of the Covid that occurred during the trial and they just looked at tiny numbers – so tiny.’
Her conclusion? In the end they were comparing three children in the vaccine arm of the trial who had Covid with seven in the placebo arm, and they said that this showed the vaccine was effective.
You can read HART’s full analysis of the trial here.