Britain's Vaccine Injured Get a Voice and a Charity

3:40-4:06, Georgia Segal.

"I remember getting out of the car and I burst into tears, and I said 'Please don't be alarmed at how I am walking.'  And it was then that I really realized, I think after the tremors on the Sunday that there was something seriously wrong.  And I'd been fine, like I'd been healthy, perfectly fine up until the point of me having my second vaccine.

5:47, Alex Mitchell.  

6:48, Charlotte Wright.  Widow of a British doctor who took the AstraZeneca vaccine.  Based on a balance of probability, the vaccine injured program in Britain awarded her $120,000.  Why does she think that this is enough to care for her family by herself?  What kind of a job does she have, or what other types of assistance is she getting?  

9:40  It's a scandal of such epic proportions, I think people don't know where to begin to begin with it.  It's frightening to even approach it."  --Dr. Clare Craig.

10:43, Caroline Pover.  Multiple symptoms after 1st AstraZeneca jab.  She runs a pickling business, writes books, and is a public speaker.  For 10 years, she supported a village in Japan, which was devastated by the tsunami, and to make her annual visit she took the jab.   5 months did hardly anything.  Exhausted constantly.  Head and eye pain was relentless.  Said she's only gotten 30% back of what she had before the vaccine.  

13:53, Dr. Aseem Malhotra.  Says that the spike protein is the mechanism of harm from the vaccine.  It gets distributed to every major organ system throughout the body, causing either a direct reaction through toxicity or an auto-immune reaction.  And that's the most likely explanation behind the mechanism of harm from the mRNA products.   

14:25  These "vaccines" were developed at warp speed, so much so that governments had to indemnify the drug companies against any future injury claims and invest billions up front.  They knew they were taking risks.

When vaccine safety and effectiveness showed up at 95%, relieved governments gave the green light.  Malhotra argues that the methodology for determining the product as "safe and effective" was flawed.  He says, "Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention, clearly which would be in the interests of people trying to sell you something, which in this case is the pharmaceutical industry.  For example, if you had a 1,000 people in a trial that didn't have the vaccine versus a 1,000 that did, in the placebo group, in the dummy group, you may have 2 people dying and in the intervention group you may have just 1 person dying, and that's a reduction of 50%, 1 over 2, a 50% relative risk reduction.  But actually you've only saved 1 life out of a 1,000.  So the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in a 1,000.  It's a big difference.  The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone.  Otherwise, it's considered unethical.       

16:08  The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer's relative risk figure of 95% efficacy when the absolute risk was a mere 0.84%.  In other words, you'd have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just 1 from catching COVID.  

I would think that employees have plenty of data that allows them now to sue their employer for mandating the vaccine.    

DR. CLARE CRAIG: So [Pfizer] ignored that data. . . . several weeks after the third dose . . . that in the end they had ignored 97% of the COVID during the trial

🧵 1/ Dr Clare Craig explains why the FDA should NOT have granted approval for roll-out in the 6 month to 4 yr old children cohort

This trial should have been deemed null and void. The regulators are failing to do their job.

Share widely & follow @hartgroup_org for updates pic.twitter.com/jnfojQ8gCH

— HART (@hartgroup_org) June 16, 2022

She's discussing the evidence that Pfizer presented to the FDA regarding their trial for vaccines eligible to 6-month-olds to 4-year-olds.  Instead of experimenting on animals, Pfizer experimented on children, and how do you think that FDA views that activity? That alone should be the damning detail to bring an end to the Grand Jury testimony and move the proceedings directly to the sentencing phase.  But call a macabre experiment "Science," and voila, you've got all the funding you could dream of and all of the approval you had no idea could exist.  So as a DRUG trial, and even more hallowed, a VACCINE trial, we are all asked to kneel, please, in reverence.  

PART 1/2  4,526 children, ages from 6 months to 4 years old.  3,000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial.  That is a huge number.  Two-thirds of them.  Why was there this drop off?  That needs to be answered and without an answer to that, and on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void.  So what did the trial show?  They severe COVID as children who had a slightly raised heart rate or  a few more breaths per minute.  There were 6 children, ages 2 to 4, who had severe COVID in the vaccine group, but only 1 in the placebo group.  So on that basis, the likelihood that this vaccine is actually causing severe COVID, is higher than the likelihood that it isn’t.  there was actually one child who was hospitalized in this trial.  They had a fever and a seizure.  They had been vaccinated. 

So now let’s turn to what they define as any COVID, and what they did was to utterly twist the data.  They vaccinated the children and they waited 3 weeks after the first dose before the second dose.  In that 3-week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got COVID and only 13 in the placebo group.  [Does this mean that the placebos are contaminated too?] which worked out to a 30% increased chance of catching COVID in that 3-week period if you were vaccinated.  So they ignored that data.  And then there was an 8-week gap between the second dose and the third dose, and again children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arms.  So they ignored that data.  There was then several weeks after the third dose, which they also ignored, which meant that in the end they had ignored 97% of the COVID during the trial and they just looked at tiny numbers, so tiny, that in the end they were comparing 3 children in the vaccine arm who had COVID with 7 in the placebo arm and they said that this showed that the vaccine was effective.   

🧵 2/ Part 2

It should be noted, the FDA voted unanimously to approve the drug for this age group. Given the problems outlined, this is unbelievable.

Follow @hartgroup_org for further updates. Please share widely@MaajidNawaz @DrAseemMalhotra @vacsafety @EthicalSkeptic pic.twitter.com/7ntI5QYSo7

— HART (@hartgroup_org) June 16, 2022

PART 2/2   So they measured how many of these children who actually managed to catch COVID in the 2-month follow-up period, and there were 12 children who had COVID twice, and all but one of them were vaccinated, mostly with 3 doses.  So you have to wonder what on earthy they're thinking when the claim of reduction in COVID was only 4 children, and here we got 12 childnre who got COVID twice, 11 of them vaccinated.  

So let's just recap.  They recruited 4,500 children.  3,000 dropped out.  And in the end, they're claiming this vaccine works on the basis of 3 COVID cases in the vaccinated group and 7 in the placebo group, on the difference of 4 children only.  And all of this, against the backdrop of a disease that DOESN'T affect children and with no long-term safety data.  We have to ask how an ethics committee could have approved this trial in babies. Babies are not at risk of COVID, and now we have Pfizer who is presenting this evidence to the FDA in order to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization.  Emergency Use Authorization is meant for a situation where there's a risk of serious injury or death.  Now, children under 5 are not at risk of serious injury or death from COVID.  In fact, in their own trial, they had to make up other ways of measuring the problem because there was no risk of serious injury or death.  Now, originally these products were sold as actually also reducing transmission.  Now, it would be completely unethical to use young children as a human shield but we now know that they don't reduce transmission.  The W.H.O. has stopped claiming that they reduced transmission.  [question: how can the W.H.O. speak on behalf or against a company's vaccines?  Do they know them that well?]  So that argument doesn't apply either.  Now, if we just turn to safety, what they did is that they followed up the patients for 6 weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them.  So the children who had a placebo, the control group, were followed up for an average of 6 weeks and then given the vaccine.  So that's your safety control gone forever.  The fact that this trial existed at all is unbelievable.  There are other issues in there which I haven't highlighted but those are the key ones.  Parents should be demanding that the decision-makers explain themselves.