Wall Street Journal sounds warning about horribly flawed FDA approval of "vax" for toddlers as young as 6 MONTHS

Okay, I can understand why y'all don't believe me about a Chinese lab carefully modifying a fairly harmless bat virus into covid, with the work funded by the utterly corrupt, otherwise incompetent Anthony Fauci.  Makes sense cuz I'm just a blogger, so can say almost anything with little risk of being sued.

But a big newspaper like the Wall Street Journal can be sued for saying something false, and has millions of dollars in assets to make such a lawsuit worthwhile.  So the Journal has to be very careful if they claim corruption and fraud--which is what the Journal's did two days ago did--albeit very carefully--in a story about the FDA approving "vaccines" for children as young as six MONTHS..  

I think the evidence is overwhelming that the approval process was flawed, if not actually corrupt. If you've got kids or grandchildren you need to *pay attention,* dammit.

Post below is edited from "Why the Rush for Toddler Vaccines?" in the WSJ, July 4th.  I've tried not to change any meaning from the article, but if I did, obviously my fault, not the Journal's.

After the FDA authorized Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for toddlers ten days ago, Biden declared “The United States is now the first country in the world to offer safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months old.”

Problem is, there's no evidence that the vaccines are either safe OR effective--especially for that age group. The rushed "FDA approval" was based on extremely weak evidence.

It’s one thing to show "regulatory flexibility" [cutting corners to rush a leaky, dangerous "vax" to market] during an emergency.  But for children, Covid isn’t an emergency.  *The FDA bent its standards to an unusual degree and brushed aside troubling evidence that warrants more investigation.*

Rational Americans should want to know why they did that.

Since the start of the covid attack, a total of 209 kids between 6 months and 4 years old have died from Covid.  

Your child has 20 times higher risk of drowning than of dying from covid.

One of the huge problems is that childrens' immune systems are still developing, and there's growing evidence that the mRNA "vaccines" damage human immune systems.

Pfizer claimed its vaccine was 80% effective, but this is misleading. For one, Pfizer contravened numerous clinical-trial conventions. Its initial protocol involved only two shots, but when this failed to generate the antibody levels required for FDA approval Pfizer added a third dose.

Normally the FDA doesn’t let drug-makers change a trial protocol if a trial is showing signs of failing to provide the expected protection.  But curiously, in this case the FDA generously the third shot to be added.  Curious.  Almost like all the normal rules have been suspended.

Pfizer then planned to track "at least 21" covid cases in vax subjects, to establish a bare-bones measure of efficacy.  (By comparison, Moderna tracked more than 250 cases.)

If you know anything about statistics, 21 people in a trial isn't enough to predict anything with much confidence, but the FDA didn't object.

But astonishingly, at the end of April Pfizer stopped its data collection after just TEN cases of covid subjects who had gotten three of their test shots.

It's probably just coincidence that they announced the end of the much-shortened trial the day after Moderna announced it had submitted its application for emergency-use authorization.

It’s hard not to conclude that Pfizer cut their study off to avoid getting beaten by Moderna. But as a result too few cases were documented to measure the effectiveness of Pfizer's "vaccine" with any degree of confidence.

And yet the company still claimed--apparently without basis--that its vaccine was 80% effective.

A Pfizer spokesperson says the FDA was more interested in vaccine “immunogenicity” data than about efficacy in toddlers, and that the company will do another efficacy analysis "after more cases accrue."

Like, really soon now.  We promise.  Well, perhaps after we've already sold another $20 billion in toddler "vaccine."  But it's 80% effective!  Really!

But at least if your toddler takes the jab, and gets covid (as roughly half of vax toddlers will), at least they're less likely to get a severe case, right?  Remember all the goofy jabbed liberals who, after getting covid, gushed "I'm so glad I was vaxxed cuz it would have been so much worse if I hadn't" ?  Well read the next sentence carefully:

More troubling [!], vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial *were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo.*

Pfizer claimed most severe cases weren’t “clinically significant.” 

"Weren't clinically significant" seems to be contradicted by that word "severe," eh?

This finding would seem to be all the more reason for the FDA to have required a longer follow-up before authorizing the vaccine.

Also worrisome:  During the vax trial--in which half the kids got a saline shot-- some developed "multiple infections."  Turns out more kids who got the real vax developed multiple infections.  This should have led to more investigation, since experimental vaccines for other diseases sometimes increase susceptibility to infection.  But the FDA seems to have been untroubled by this finding.

Researchers are also discovering that triple-vaccinated adults who were infected with an early covid variant have a weaker immune response to Omicron. This phenomenon, called “immunological imprinting,” could explain why children who received three Pfizer shots were more likely to get reinfected.

The FDA brushed aside the risk that inoculating infants against a variant no longer circulating could blunt their immune responses to later mutations.

The FDA standard for approving vaccines in otherwise healthy people, especially children, is supposed to be higher than for drugs that treat the sick. But the FDA conspicuously lowered its standards to approve Covid vaccines for toddlers. Why?  
===
The author is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

Source. 

You can't say you weren't warned--not by me, but by the Wall Street Journal.