Let's talk about Tuesday's VRBPAC meeting where they recommended authorizing Moderna for children from 6-17 years old.

The post that earned me a 30 day ban from groups on Facebook

---

This is the last post I made on Facebook before I was given another 30 day ban. It is as I posted it on the morning of June 15th with some of the banned word-hiding corrected and reformatted for this platform.

---

The data supporting such an authorization is scant, to say the least, and yet they still did it by playing as many games as they could. We already know that many of those same games will be played later today when they authorize both Pfizer and Moderna for children between 6 months through 4 years.

First, yesterday's decision for 6-11 year-olds was based on just 6 total cases; 3 in the treatment group and 3 in the placebo group (below). There simply aren't enough children who get COVID at all to get good statistics on as we can see by the massive 95% confidence interval which ranges from negative 131% efficacy to 95.8% efficacy. There's also that now-familiar data gap for 14 days after the second dose when they finally start counting 'cases'. Hardly solid data, which presents a big problem for those wanting to ram this through.

So to 'strengthen’ their non-existent efficacy data, they have come up with something they have termed 'immunobridging'. Immunobridging is a method to infer vaccine effectiveness by measuring antibodies in one population and comparing that with another age group that has more data. It is important to note that we have no idea what amount of antibodies are protective against SARS-CoV-2. This is a guess on top of a guess. We're also comparing two age groups (6-11 year-olds and 18-25 year-olds) that have shown significant differences in terms of how each has weathered the pandemic. We already know these two groups do not respond in the same way to this virus, but they're going to conflate the two anyway.

Efficacy wasn't the only place they played with the numbers. They also breezed through the safety analyses. Below, find a table listing the solicited systemic reactions within the first 7 days after the first dose. In particular, note the incredibly high frequency of systemic reactions after the second dose, including ~120 6-11 year-olds with headaches severe enough to prevent daily activity, along with children experiencing severe nausea/vomiting, chills and arthritis (arthralgia) which was non-existent in the placebo group. These are not trivial reactions, and indicate an overstimulation of the child's innate immune system. Not to mention these jabs are supposedly being given to prevent your child from being unwell.

Their next disconnect from the reality on the ground is shown below. They actually gave us some data on the difference in adverse reactions in children who were seronegative (had no antibodies) before getting their first dose and those who were seropositive. The difference is pretty dramatic, with those who already had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies far more likely to experience more systemic reactions.

What they completely ignored was that only 8.6% of the children who took the experimental biologic already had antibodies. As of February 2022, seroprevalence studies have shown that more than 75% of children have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The number of already immune children who will be suffering debilitating side effects from these jabs by their own data is staggering.

And those are just the short term adverse events.

Below, find a table that shows that 50% of these young children suffered an adverse event in the following months. More than 1/3rd suffered a medically attended AE. Are all of those adverse events related to the jab? Of course not, but judging by the injury denial for the adult population, the number of jab-related AEs are most certainly undercounted. Unfortunately, we can't even compare the AEs to the placebo group, as this trial gave the placebo participants the experimental biologic too, permanently eliminating any chance to study long term effects or efficacy. Whoopsie?

Finally, I think the FDA did an excellent job summarizing things in the image below, though it required a little bit of correction on my part. Specifically that, even according to them, there are NO KNOWN benefits to this jab.

It is all based on inferences, 'supportive' evidence, descriptive analyses and 'expectations' that it will work against more severe COVID-19.

Hopes and guesses based on sketchy data. And today will undoubtedly be more of the same as they aim at our very youngest children.