Dr. Clare Craig Explains How Pfizer Cherry-Picked Clinical Trial Data to Approve Shots for Babies
Dr. Clare Craig Explains How Pfizer Cherry-Picked Clinical Trial Data to Approve Shots for Babies
Please take 5 minutes to watch her video
It was painful to listen to the hearings last week. Listening to carefully crafted word salad designed to bury the truth and push agenda was a bit sickening.
Luckily, Dr. Clare Craig was also listening and her short video breaks down the key points.
Here’s the transcript:
I’m Dr. Clare Craig. I’m a diagnostic pathologist and I’m co-chair of the HART Group. I want to take you through the evidence that Pfizer just presented to the FDA on the 6 month to 4 year old children. There’s an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me and I think will shock you, too.
The trial recruited 4526 children aged from 6 months to 4 years old. Three thousand of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That is a huge number – 2/3 of them. Why was there this drop off? That needs to be answered. And without an answer to that, and 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 6 children aged 2 to 4 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. And what they did was to utterly twist the data. They vaccinated the children and they waited three weeks after the first dose before the 2nd dose. In that 3 week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got Covid and only 13 in the placebo group, which worked out as a 30% increased chance of catching Covid in that 3 week period if you were vaccinated.
So they ignored that data.
And then there was an 8 week gap between the 2nd dose and the 3rd dose, where again, children were getting plenty of Covid in the vaccine arm.
So they ignored that data.
There was then several weeks after the 3rd dose that 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. So tiny.
In the end, they were comparing 3 children in the vaccine arm who had Covid with 7 in the placebo arm and they said that this showed that the vaccine was effective.
So they measured how many of these children actually managed to catch Covid twice in the 2 month follow up period, and there were 12 children who had Covid twice. And all but one of them were vaccinated – mostly with 3 doses. So you have to wonder what on earth they’re thinking when the claim of reduction in Covid was only 4 children and here we have 12 children who got Covid twice, 11 of them vaccinated.
So let’s just recap.
They recruited 4500 children.
3000 of them dropped out.
And in the end they’re claiming this vaccine works on the basis of 3 Covid cases vs 7 – a difference of 4 children only. And all of this on the backdrop of a disease which doesn’t affect children and with no long term safety data. We have to ask how an ethics committee could have approved this trial in babies. Babies are not at risk from Covid.
And now we have Pfizer who are presenting this 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. Now children under 5 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.
Now originally these products were sold as actually reducing transmission. Now it would be completely unethical to use young children as a human shield, but we now know that they don’t reduce transmission. The WHO stopped claiming they stop transmission, so that argument doesn’t apply either.
Now if we just turn to safety, what they did is that they followed up the patients for 6 weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them. So the children who’d had placebo, the control group, were followed up for an average of 6 weeks and then given the vaccine. So that’s your safety control gone forever.
The fact that this trial existed at all is unbelievable. 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.
Informed consent means understanding this - AND the other very real risks - before injecting children. So why is the truth deliberately buried?…
I think it’s pretty clear that this sh!t would never be approved otherwise.