(Article by Dr. Joseph Mercola republished from Articles.Mercola.com)
"Why the Rush for Toddler Vaccines?" asks Wall Street Journal editorial board member Allysia Finley in a July 4, 2022, op-ed.1 Indeed, many are asking that same question, and I'm glad the legacy media's WSJ had the courage to print it.
In the last days of June 2022, the United States became the first country in the world to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID jabs for toddlers as young as 6 months.
The Food and Drug Administration issued the EUA June 17,2 and the very next day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended all toddlers get the shot as soon as possible.3 President Biden called it "a very historic milestone, a monumental step forward."4 But is it?
"COVID was clearly a health emergency for adults in 2020. By contrast, the urgency now feels political," Finley writes.5 "In fact, we don't know if the vaccines are safe and effective. The rushed FDA action was based on extremely weak evidence.
It's one thing to show regulatory flexibility 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."
Another person who thinks the EUA of the COVID shot for infants is part of political theater is Toby Rogers, Ph.D. In the video above, he discusses the authorization process — which he watched live — with "Against the Wind" host Paul Thomas. Rogers reveals how the FDA and CDC "trampled scientific norms, ran roughshod over proper methods and abandoned science." He tells Thomas:
"What you want from a process like this is good science — having hard conversations and sifting through evidence of signals and noises in order to make good decisions on behalf of the country. What you get instead is politics — getting products across the line no matter what."
Finley points out that only 209 children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have died from COVID, per CDC data.6 She uses the word "from," but the evidence suggests most children die "with" COVID and from other serious health conditions such as cancer.7,8,9
That said, Finley does note that the two children in Pfizer's pediatric trial who developed the most serious infections "also tested positive for other viruses," so "it's possible that many hospitalizations attributed to COVID this winter were actually instigated or exacerbated by other viruses."
Another telling statistic is that the number of toddlers hospitalized with COVID between October 2020 and September 2021 was about half the total number of toddlers hospitalized with influenza the previous winter.10 That data, again, comes from the CDC, so clearly, they're fully aware of how the COVID risk compares to other common infections.
Finley then goes on to discuss effectiveness, noting that while the shots initially seemed to offer robust protection for adults, the same cannot be said for children. The Moderna shot was only 51% effective against symptomatic Omicron infection in 6-month-olds to 2-year-olds, and a mere 37% effective in 2- to 5-year-olds.
This is lower than what we normally accept for vaccines, which makes the authorization even more irrational. Why use such an experimental injection with such poor effectiveness in children who aren't at grave risk of death from the infection in the first place? Pfizer, meanwhile, claimed its shot was 80% effective, "but this is misleading," Finley says, and goes on to explain:
"For one, Pfizer contravened numerous clinical-trial conventions. Its initial protocol involved only two doses, but this failed to generate the antibody levels required for FDA approval. So Pfizer added a third dose, which the FDA generously allowed. Usually the agency won't let drugmakers make a course correction when a trial ends in failure.
Pfizer then planned to track at least 21 cases to establish a bare-bones measure of efficacy. By comparison, Moderna tracked more than 250 cases. Yet Pfizer truncated its data collection on April 29 ... even though a mere 10 cases had been recorded after the third dose.
It's hard not to conclude that Pfizer cut corners to avoid getting beaten by Moderna. But as a result too few cases were documented to measure with any degree of confidence Pfizer's vaccine efficacy ...
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,' whatever that means, but this was all the more reason that the FDA should have required a longer follow-up before authorizing the vaccine.
Also worrisome: Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated. This warranted more investigation, since experimental vaccines for other diseases sometimes increase susceptibility to infection.
Scientists are also discovering that triple-vaccinated adults who were previously infected with the Wuhan variant have a weaker immune response to Omicron, leaving them more susceptible to reinfection. This phenomenon, called 'immunological imprinting,' could explain why children who received three Pfizer shots were more likely to get reinfected."
Basically, the CDC and FDA are betting that giving the COVID jab won't blunt toddlers' immune responses to other infections, be it a SARS-CoV-2 variant or something else. This is reckless in the extreme, seeing how the immune system of young children is still immature and faces countless potential foes on a daily basis.
This ongoing "training" that the immune system undergoes during the first few years of a child's life is what allows them to develop a well-functioning immune system over time. Immunological imprinting could throw a huge wrench in the works, making children less able to combat infections.
Young children are exceptionally "hardy" and can bounce back from most infections. However, that's provided something hasn't been done that prevents their immune system from functioning normally. Of course, we also know the shots are associated with even more serious effects, including heart inflammation, neurological disorders and cancer.
"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?" Finley asks.11 Why indeed? What are they thinking?
Sadly, they're likely not thinking about children's health at all, but rather Big Pharma's profits. The EUA authorization of the COVID jab for toddlers eliminates all questions about whether the FDA and CDC are captured by pharma or not. They are.
That's now beyond clear, and the consequences of this blatant capture are likely to be far-reaching. It could even destroy the childhood vaccination program as a whole, as parents are now catching on to the fact that these agencies are corrupt to the core and basically work as covert promotional agencies for Big Pharma.
Read more at: Articles.Mercola.com