USA: On June 17, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency authorization (EUA) for Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” to be injected into babies as young as six months old.
Previously, only children five years of age and older were allowed to get jabbed, and only with the Pfizer injection, while people 18 years of age and older were allowed to take Moderna. Now, infants can have their DNA permanently destroyed with either brand, thanks to the FDA.
The announcement came just two days after an FDA advisory panel comprised of “independent experts” voted unanimously to allow the regulator to emergency authorize the shots for this new age demographic.
“Authorization has a lower evidentiary bar than approval, and is only possible because U.S. authorities have maintained a COVID-19 emergency designation despite cases, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to the disease plunging since the metrics hit fresh peaks in January,” reports The Epoch Times.
FDA admits that Pfizer trial data on children is “not reliable” but is authorizing the shots anyway
The shots of course do absolutely nothing to promote health and are entirely unnecessary for babies. But Pfizer and Moderna need to generate more profits, so the FDA is doing their Wall Street bidding at the expense of children’s lives.
The FDA admitted in a statement that Pfizer’s pathetic clinical trial involving children “was determined not to be reliable due to the low number of COVID-19 cases that occurred in the study participants.” Even so, the FDA is giving the company whatever it wants just because.
“No estimates were possible for protection against severe illness – which is the primary reason officials say to get vaccinated because the protection has waned considerably as new virus variants emerge – because of the low numbers of severe cases among vaccinated and unvaccinated volunteers,” the Times added.
In his own statement, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf praised his agency’s decision, claiming that parents, caregivers, and clinicians have been desperately waiting for the opportunity to start jabbing babies at warp speed.
“As we have seen with older age groups, we expect that the vaccines for younger children will provide protection from the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, such as hospitalization and death,” Califf claims.
Peter Marks, another FDA goon, added to this that the agency supposedly engaged in “rigorous and thorough” analysis of the shots before authorizing them for use in babies.
As we reported last fall, a study looking at the effects of Fauci Flu shots on unborn babies found that 90 percent of them died upon exposure to the injections. With that in mind, how can the FDA make these ridiculous claims about a “rigorous and thorough” investigation?
“From an efficacy standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to approve these products,” says Brian Hooker, the chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
On Friday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will convene with its own vaccine advisory panel to discuss whether or not to recommend the jabs for this age group in the same way that the FDA did. Chances are that the CDC will follow right along with the FDA as the final decision will be made by Director Rochelle Walensky, who is Tony Fauci-level evil.
“This is a crime against humanity to destroy the natural immunity of infants with experimental products that have proven to be dangerous and useless,” wrote a reader of the Times.
“When they blatantly tell you that your children must be sacrificed to bring about their new world order, that is when debate must turn into rage,” added another.
Sources for this article include:
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.