ER Editor: Here are some main points from the video. Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist with the HART group, is describing the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial that used 4,526 children (6 months to 4 years old). On the basis of this trial, Pfizer is requesting EUA (emergency use authorization) from the FDA for its vaccine in this age group where there is supposed to be a serious risk of injury or death from Covid. Yet there isn’t in children, of this young age or any other.
So, Pfizer recruited 4,526 children for their Covid vaccine trial, yet 3,000 didn’t make it to the end of the trial. Why? That alone should have been enough to get the trial cancelled.
‘Severe Covid’ was defined as children having a slightly elevated heart rate or taking a few extra breaths per minute (ER: *this* is Covid?). 6 children presented like this in the vaccine group, with just one in the placebo group. Which probably means that the vaccine is causing Covid. (One vaccinated child was hospitalized during the trial with a fever and seizure.)
In the 3-week waiting period after the first dose of the vaccine, 34 children got Covid and only 13 in the placebo group. So vaccinated kids had a 30% higher chance of catching Covid in that 3-week period. But Pfizer ignored that data.
Between the 2nd and 3rd dose, there was an 8 week gap during which children got ‘plenty’ of Covid in the vaccinated group. There were also cases of Covid happening in the weeks following the 3rd dose. All this data was ignored, which meant that, overall, 97% of the Covid cases were ignored.
Pfizer ended up looking at very tiny numbers to justify their claims. They ended up comparing 3 (three) vaccinated children with 7 (seven) non-vaccinated placebo recipients, and claimed on that basis that the vaccine was effective.
In the follow-up period, 12 children had Covid twice; 11 of those were vaccinated, mostly with 3 doses. So what are they thinking, claiming that the vaccine reduces Covid on the basis of THREE children when in fact 11 of them got Covid twice?
And all this was done with NO LONG-TERM SAFEY DATA!
How could this trial have been approved by an ethics committee for babies who aren’t at risk from Covid? And now Pfizer is using this data with the FDA to get EUA granted.
Then, after just 6 weeks, the non-vaccinated children in the placebo group WERE VACCINATED. Which means there is no comparison safety data beyond a mere 6 weeks.
Parents should be demanding that the decision makers explain themselves.
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.
The HART group is a group of highly respected independent doctors and scientists. My friend, Professor Norman Fenton, is a member of this group.
In this 4 minute video, Dr. Clare Craig, co-chair of the HART group, explains the clinical trial that was used to justify vaccinating our 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.
Everyone should watch this video. It should be required viewing for any parent who is considering vaccinating their child.
Here is the report Pfizer submitted to the FDA referenced in her video. You can see the numbers on page 39 (look in the column headings for the N= numbers).
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.