British pathologist and researcher Dr. Clare Craig said Pfizer’s trial for its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines for babies as young as six months should be deemed “null and void.” She pointed to the trial’s numerous flaws and misrepresentations to back up her argument.
Craig, co-chair of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) group, recorded a six-minute video where she analyzed the data from Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab trial in children ages six months to four years.
After collating information from Pfizer’s emergency use authorization (EUA) application with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the use of the drug in young children, she found that the vaccinated group contracted the virus in greater numbers than the placebo group. However, the pharmaceutical giant misreported the data to show instead that the “vaccine” was marginally more effective at preventing the infection.
“There’s an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me, and I think it will shock you too,” Craig said in her video’s opening. She said that the trial recruited 4,526 children aged six months to four years old, but over 3,000 did not make it – a staggering rate of attrition. Craig then called on Pfizer to explain why two-thirds of the participants dropped out.
Furthermore, Craig found in the appendix of Pfizer’s EUA application that the trial appeared to have lowered the bar for what was considered to be a case of “severe COVID-19” in children.
Prior to the vaccine trial, a child was considered to have severe COVID-19 if they required mechanical ventilation, dialysis, or other invasive treatments. However, the trial counted cases of participants expressing a “slightly raised heart rate of a few more breaths per minute” in the COVID-19 case count.
The medical expert remarked that Pfizer “utterly twisted [vaccine trial data]” and urged parents to demand that “the decision makers explain themselves.”
Craig continued that Pfizer scientists ignored weeks of data in their flawed vaccine trial. The Pfizer vaccine’s proposed primary regimen for children was three doses – with the first two taken three weeks apart and the final dose to be given eight weeks after the second.
But as early as the initial three-week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got COVID-19 compared to only 13 children in the placebo group. However, Pfizer ignored this data and maintained the eight week gap between the second and third doses. Aside from this, Craig added that Pfizer scientists turned a blind eye to the 97 percent of COVID-19 cases that occurred following the third dose.
A week after the second round of vaccine efficacy averaged around 24 percent among 3,954 children. However, this was ultimately faulty as they were comparing three children who have been vaccinated to seven who have been injected with a placebo and did not have the virus after the third dose.
Pfizer claimed an average efficacy of 78.9 percent from only ten children, and they said that this showed that the vaccine was effective, according to Craig. (Related: More people died following Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine vs. a placebo during clinical trial.)
The trial further accounted for children who contracted the disease twice in the two-month follow-up period, with Craig noting that 12 children had COVID twice and all but one of them were vaccinated, mostly with three doses.
She also asked how an ethics committee could have approved the trial in babies when they are not at risk from COVID, although Pfizer presented their “data” as evidence to the FDA for their EUA. Pfizer, in their own trial, had to make up other ways of measuring the problem because of the lack of serious injury or death.
Visit Vaccines.news for more updates about the Pfizer vaccines.
Watch the video below for Craig’s explanation about why the FDA should have denied approval of the Pfizer vaccines for children.
This video is from the In Search for Truth channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:Submit a correction >>