Dr. Craig: Jabs Increase COVID in Babies and Kids–Plus Two-Thirds Dropped Out of the Trial

This is the transcript of a 4-minute video which every parent, in a world that still valued informed consent that the Nuremberg code guarantees you, should be required to read or watch before accepting the injections for a baby or child.

Anything [in brackets] was added by me, for clarity.

The video itself is at the bottom, along with another analyst’s chart showing you how clear the trial data is, that this product that FDA’s VRBPAC committee just approved hurts children:

I'm Dr. Claire Craig. I'm a diagnostic pathologist and I am co-chair at The Hart Group. And I want to take you through the evidence that Pfizer just presented to the FDA on the 6 months to 4-year-old children. There's an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me, and I think will shock you too.

Per FTC guidelines, please assume links on this newsletter may be affiliate links that benefit us, though if so, the price is not marked up. Thank you for supporting our mission.

The trial recruited 4,526 children aged from six months to four years old. 3,000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That 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.

So what did the trial show? 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.

There was actually one child who was hospitalized in this trial. They had a fever and a seizure. They had been vaccinated.

So now let's turn to what they defined as “any COVID.” 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 30 in the placebo group, which worked out as a 30% 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, children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arm [of the trial], and so they ignored that data.

There was then several weeks after the third dose which they also ignored, which meant that in the end, they had ignored 97% of the COVID that occurred during the trial, and they just looked at tiny numbers.

In the end, they were comparing three children in the vaccine [group] who had COVID with seven in the placebo arm [of the trial], and they said that this showed the vaccine was effective.

They measured how many of these children actually managed to catch COVID twice in the two-month follow up period, and there were 12 children who had COVID twice, and all but one of them were vaccinated, mostly with three doses.

So let's recap. They recruited 4,500 children. 3,000 of them dropped out. And in the end, they're claiming this vaccine works on the basis of three COVID cases versus seven, a difference of only four children. [Not statistically significant, by any standards.] And all of this on a backdrop of a disease which doesn't affect children. And with no long-term safety data.

Babies are not at risk from COVID. And Pfizer is presenting this as evidence to the FDA in order to apply for an emergency use authorization.

Emergency use authorization is meant for a situation where there's a risk of serious injury or death, and children under five are not at risk of serious injury or death from COVID.

In fact, in their own trial, they had to make up other ways of measuring the problem because there was no serious injury or death.

Originally these products were sold as actually also reducing transmission. Now it would be completely unethical to use young children as a human shield, but we now know that they [the jabs] don't reduce transmission. The WHO stopped claiming that they reduce transmission, so that argument doesn't apply either.

If we just turn to safety, what they did is they followed up the patients for six weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them, so the children who'd had the placebo, the control group, were followed up for an average of six weeks and then given the vaccine. So the safety control is gone forever. [Pfizer did the same with adults: after the first 4 months of the trial, the placebo group was all told to go get the injections, effectively eliminating the placebo group for comparison of long-term health effects.]

There are other issues in there, which I haven't highlighted but those are the key ones. Parents should be demanding that the decision makers explain themselves. [I would also love to talk to the parents whose children “got COVID twice”–which really just means they didn’t get well from the assault on their immature immunity–and still had their child get the third jab.]

This is Dr. Claire Craig on video:

HART @hartgroup_org

🧵 1/ Dr Clare Craig explains why the FDA should NOT have granted approval for roll-out in the 6 month to 4 yr old children cohort This trial should have been deemed null and void. The regulators are failing to do their job. Share widely & follow @hartgroup_org for updates

Here is a graphical image of the data Dr. Craig presented:

Please consider subscribing at $10/month, which helps keep this small business doing our good work. We are shifting some our focus from natural health, into developing preparedness topics and how to develop your natural-medicine cabinet to empower yourself. And, please assume that some of the links I may share, compensate my small business. Thank you for your support these last 16 years at GreenSmoothieGirl and the last 2 ½ years at TakeActionForFreedom. – Robyn Openshaw