Europe approves shots for tots despite a study on Pfizer shots for tots showing one in 99 require emergency hospital treatment
I am deeply disgusted, disappointed and stunned by todays depressing news that the European Medical Agency (EMA) has copied the approval of experimental mRNA injections in their babies and tots. I don’t know how this plays out in the different member countries in the EU, as far as compulsory injections for tots on any “vaccine schedules”.
This is the committee structure that determines the EMA’s response.
Emergency Task Force (ETF) | European Medicines Agency (europa.eu)
So, there is that “abomination replication cult” by the worshippers of Baal and Moloch within the Union of European Socialist Republics (UESR) to take on board.
I guesstimated around 1,800 deaths per million in the 6 month to 4 year inclusive age cohort (“tots”) getting two doses in the US. The US has around 22 lots of a million tots, so 40,000 tot deaths if all tots are injected. The EU overall population of 444 million is around 30% bigger than that of the US’ 338 million, so I estimate that there could be a little over 50,000 tot deaths in the EU if all tots are subjected to a double dose regimen.
Very, very depressing.
Now add on the permanent harms from 200-300 times more adverse events than deaths that will very likely turn into morbid diseases and conditions in the fullness of time – say the next five years and there is evidence that the EMA has no issue with killing and maiming tots using human experiments. All for an EXPERIMENT that has not been properly clinically trialled.
Before we get to a Pfizer retrospective cohort study released on 18 October 2022, here is a link to the on-going Moderna kidCOVE clinical trial for tots and children aged 6 months to 12 years old (13,575 participants and still recruiting) that is due for completion in November 2023, presumably being adjusted, as we speak, for inclusion in the trial of the “new and improved” bivalent mRNA injection just developed by Moderna.
Featured Trial (modernatx.com)
https://trials.modernatx.com/study/?id=mRNA-1273-P204
Back to the retrospective Pfizer cohort trial published on the JAMA Network on Pfizer injections on tots on 18 October 2022, two days BEFORE the CDC-APIC decision and three days BEFORE the EMA decision.
The inimitable Expose-news.com team put out this article today that refers to the JAMA network study published on 18 October 2022:
https://expose-news.com/2022/10/21/study-1-in-99-covid-vaccinated-children-hospitalised/
The site has its own take and analysis below the terrifying headline, but I tease out a few other points that are worth highlighting.
Here is a link to the study itself published by the JAMA network, which has embedded .pdf links to the 12 page study (that can’t be copied directly here).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797451
One, the study used non-mRNA C19 injections as a comparator, not a placebo of those untreated with any kind of prophylactic – there is no placebo comparison, which is probably true of all clinical trials. This may not be significant, but maybe there is as high an incidence of toxins in non-mRNA injections such as mercury in “normal” flu injections in the EU as there is in the USA, or there is the presence of aluminium pollutants which could have some tendency to produce similar outcomes at similar rates of adverse event outcomes (for different reasons) as mRNA-C19 injections.
The 7,806 participants in the retrospective cohort study volunteered from 19,000 selected from government databases over the 21 day period spanning 14 April 2022 to 9 May 2022. Guardians of participants reported short-term safety data of 1 to 3 doses of 3 to 10 μg and were surveyed for an an average period of 91 days (one standard deviation? of +/- 38 days).
The study covered Pfizer’s BNT162b2 in children from birth to younger than 60 months.
has these findings in answer to this question:
“Question Is the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safe in children younger than 5 years?
Findings In this cohort study based on a survey of guardian-reported safety profiles of BNT162b2 in 7806 children, higher dosages of BNT162b2 were significantly associated with injection site reactions. Compared with approved non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 was associated with significantly more frequent injection-site, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, or otolaryngologic symptoms but fewer general symptoms and fever after vaccination.”
So, fewer general systems and fever, but higher dosages resulted in significant injection-site symptoms of other types. The other good news was that there were no deaths over the period of the study in the mRNA C19 injected cohort or the non-injected mRNA cohort that received “normal” flu shots.
Digging a little deeper we have these “Odds Ratios” for incidences of adverse events between the mRNA injected and the non-mRNA injected cohorts.
Any symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.43-1.84)”
So, the odds of any symptoms across all dosages and regimens were 62% higher with the mRNA injection.
Within that:
· local symptoms (OR, 1.68; 95% CI,1.38-2.05), - 68% higher
· musculoskeletal symptoms (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.32-4.94), - 155% higher
· dermatologic symptoms (OR,2.18; 95% CI, 10.7-4.45), - 118% higher
· otolaryngologic symptoms (OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 1.50-27.09) – 537% higher
· general symptoms (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95) – 23% lower
· fever (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55) -58% lower
· Symptoms requiring hospitalization (n = 10) were reported only at BNT162b2 dosages above 3 μg
(I don’t know how the range for dermatologic symptoms can be 10.7 DOWN to 4.45 around the mean of 2.18. Ranges are supposed to be shown from low to high, not high to low!)
So, ear problems were far higher after mRNA injections. I wonder if this has anything to do with reports of tinnitus or increases in nicotine levels interfering with neurotransmitters in the auditory nerve – not my area!
The Expose-news.com article has punchier data than this, for example:
“..1.43 in every 100 children suffered some form of illness of the pulmonary system following Covid-19 vaccination. Whereas just 0.47 in every 100 children suffered some form of illness of the pulmonary system following any other type of vaccination.”
And:
“..1 in every 99 children aged 5 and under required emergency care (ambulatory) or hospitalisation (inpatient) following Covid-19 vaccination. This compares to 0.46 in every 99 children requiring emergency care or hospitalisation following any other type of vaccination.”
Anyway, the conclusion of the medical statisticians was that the study could be used to inform policy making – but had this “spin” on the results:
“CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, the symptoms reported after BNT162b2 administration were comparable overall to those for on-label non–SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in this cohort of children younger than 5 years. The present data may be used together with prospective licensure studies of BNT162b2 efficacy and safety and could help guide expert recommendations about BNT162b2 vaccinations in this age group.”
Comparable overall? 62% higher overall with more than 5 times the ear aches and more than double the musculoskeletal and dermatological symptoms? Maybe the incidence of general symptoms and fever are more important. Perhaps the tolerance for injections are set so low that some symptoms can be disregarded as significant – even it they are double or 5 times a placebo (a placebo that might itself have symptoms caused by non-mRNA injections).
Surely this is not another IVM type study where the conclusions don’t match the results.
Onwards!
https://conservativechoicecampaign.com/two-year-old-baby-dies-during-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-experiments-on-children/
EVIL.
LUNATICS.