Toby Rogers, Ph.D. writing for The Defender, which specializes in children’s health defense has compiled an incredible breakdown of 10 Red Flags that he located in the Food & Drug Administration’s Risk Benefit analysis of approving an Emergency Use Authorization or EUA to treat children from 5-11 years of age with the “vaccine“. The implications of Rogers’ findings are horrifying and show us that the FDA under the Biden-Harris regime has been fully co-opted by Big Pharma and Big Government hand in hand and run amok.
Rogers takes some time in his lengthy essay to provide his bonafides for the reading public. Let’s suffice it to say he’s got the goods: Undergrad Statistics from Swarthmore ✓, a year of graduate statistics at the master’s program rated #1 for policy analysis from UC Berkeley ✓, Ph.D. in political economy from University of Sydney ✓. Basically the man has eaten, slept, and drank corruption in the pharmaceutical industry for over five years. This is his specialty.
Compared to the in-depth analytical approach that Toby gives in his piece, we’re going to give you a more ‘quick and clean’ approach.
A Deliberately Skewed Analysis Of The Vaccine’s Risk To Children
1. “COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750).” So much for that vaunted “90% effective” rate. When you’re dealing with a mild case that a child would naturally recover from anyway, all you’re changing is giving them a less robust immunity.
2. “Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harm.” Based on Toby’s writings this is an old dodge in the industry which the FDA even slapped Pfizer down for earlier this year, but Pfizer just ignored the government, just like any of us can do… (actually… wait… if we do that we get fined and go to jail.. dang.)
3. “Pfizer only enrolled ‘participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.’” Rogers asks “does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government?” Short version… NO IDEA, Pfizer very, very deliberately excluded children who already had COVID19 so that they wouldn’t be able to answer that question. After all, imagine if their own study proved that their “vaccine” actually destroyed our natural immunity. Oof.
4. “Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants?” Seriously this one looks like fundamental negligence. How can a professional, academic study like one done for Pfizer which only has a control group of 750 children manage to lose track of 4.9% of them?
5. “The follow-up period was intentionally too short.” Why in the world would the first group of subjects be tracked and studied for two months and the second group only be studied for 17 days? Wouldn’t that immediately make it difficult to compare the groups? And even the two-month period is insufficient for the study of long-term effects.
6. “The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis.” Guillain-Barré syndrome? Nope. Anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy, heart attack, thrombocytopenia/low platelet, permanent disability, shingles? Nope, nada, nah, niet, nine.
7. “Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo.” This is truly criminal, it’s unconscionable, by giving the control group the vaccine right after the study, Pfizer has made it completely impossible for any other groups or even their own researchers to perform follow-up studies.
8. “Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot?” They pretty much had to come up with a new standard of “immuno-bridging” instead of looking at ACTUAL health outcomes… because none of the subjects actually had a severe case of COVID19. Yup, breaking new ground every day it seems.
9. “The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a six-month period after the completion of two doses.” With all the news media and public figures abuzz about the necessity of “booster shots” and how effective the “vaccine” is over a long term: How could they possibly justify a model that only assesses the effectiveness for Six Months?!?! If you can figure that one out you get a prize… (For legal purposes there is no prize.)
10. “The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis.” This one is disturbing because it seems deliberately done to make verification of their findings IMPOSSIBLE: “They estimate “excess” (read: caused by the shot) myocarditis using data from the private “Optum health claim database” instead of the public Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system (see page 32). So it’s impossible for the public to verify their claims.”
So what’s the risk-to-benefit analysis here? It seems an unquantified level of risk for a negligible benefit that fades over time.
