The Highwire with Del Bigtree - GOOD QUESTIONS, TERRIBLE ANSWERS

Episode Date: June 30, 2022

GOOD QUESTIONS, TERRIBLE ANSWERSBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

We have some serious business to talk about, Del. All right, let's get into it. All right. Well, let's start with the ASIP committee. This is the advisory committee on immunization practices. And they have recently recommended COVID vaccines for children six months and older. Here's the headline CDC recommends COVID vaccines for children as young as six months. And then we have the FDA just before that authorizing Moderna and Pfizer bio.

N-Tech COVID vaccines for children six months and older. This was at the VIRPAC meeting. That's the, as you said, the vaccines and related biological products advisory committee. But what I want to do here is, is, you know, there's been, there's been a lot of reporting on this. People are really up in arms about this. This is really the big topic, the big conversation. I want to go directly to those meetings, directly to those experts and those advisors. And I want the public to hear from them. So let's start. Let's jump right in here. Okay. This was Dr. Wayne. A. Morosco, he's a cancer researcher, a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and he was talking about the follow-up for the efficacy for these vaccines. Now, this was for the

Moderna vaccine at the Verpak meeting. And the FDA, just as a side note, the Pfizer vaccine was out front. It was approved for EUA for adolescents first and kids and adults first. Moderna was kind of waiting in the wings, it kind of back there, but that was all caught up now. So it's all caught up. So this was during the Verpack meeting. This was what he had to say. He had some questions. Take a listen.

All right. I mean, look, for people out there, I get it. Some of this is sort of sciencey, what are they talking about? But you really just get a sense of a very important question by scientists, looking at efficacy, you know, and saying, I'm only seeing this short period of time. I essentially know these vaccines are wearing off. That is one of the issues. Durability is our problem. Do we, I mean, do we, are we looking at, you know, longer term what happens after this 60 days?

And what was so shocking to me about what she said is, well, at that point, we don't have a placebo group anymore. So does that, why is that? Is that because they just vaccinated the placebo group before they ever got any longer term data? Yeah, the study protocol at that point was revised. They unblinded everybody. They offered the vaccine to everybody. and at that point, the placebo group was gone. So that study is essentially like someone building a sandcastle

and then a bunch of people coming along and just wrecking. It's gone. They have no more data. So we have the, they have the, we have these, what we're told are some of the best experts in the country asking for data. Hey, we need this data. We have an important decision we're about to make here. Where is it?

Don't have it. We vaccinated the placebo groups. Gone forever. That's what she told right there. This is like a kid saying I did, I did the paper. I just tore it up. I mean, yeah, you didn't see the last paragraph from my conclusion because I tore it I mean, this is insane the fact that, and for anyone, any doctor or scientist out there that would

argue that it's okay to erase the placebo group, no, it's not, you just got a question you now cannot answer that you could have answered had you done proper long-term science, which is something we've been complaining about from the beginning, and right here she admits, sorry, we erase the placebo group, so that information you want, yeah, not capable for the most important health agency in the world to determine the CDC and the FDA. Unbelievable. And understand what she said at the end there. I guess we're going to have to work, we're just going to rely on real world data.

That's you everybody out there. You're the vaccine experiment group. She said that in not so uncertain terms. Right, because that's so easy to track. It's so easy to track with a system we don't trust called the VERS system. So now everybody that gets injured, all the efficacy that doesn't work and say, well, we can't really trust that information. It's real world data and it's underreported. I mean, this whole scam would not.

not be so frustrating if we weren't going to watch children die because of it. All right, I'm going to let you move on. I'm sure there's other things that will get under my yeah hot into the collar here. We have some clips to get through but just buckle up here. So now let's switch to the ASIP meeting. This is the CDC's ASIP meeting. This is where they recommend things to put on the childhood schedules. They recommend them. This gets them out in the circulation. The FDA just kind of approves them, gives them the regulatory green light. The CDC really puts them out there. So this is at their meeting. This was family physician Jamie Lauer. And he had a question And again, efficacy was the big deal throughout these two meetings.

The efficacy data just wasn't there. So there's a lot of questions on that. Listen to what he had to say. If you notice that in our, you know, summary conclusion slides for benefits and risk, we didn't quote efficacy estimates. I think we tried to lean into, you know, these vaccines, a primary series provides protection against infection and will continue, you know, to provide higher protection, we assume against more severe disease but fully agree that there's differences in certainty,

the fact that we're making decisions based on both efficacy and immunobridging is a part of the total picture and we'll monitor all of this really closely in the post-authorization studies. Thanks. Dr. Lara. Thank you, Dr. Oliver, for an excellent presentation. I want to re-emphasize what Dr. Long and Dr. Lee just said, that we're, I'm voting to approve this on basis of immunobridging studies and not based on the efficacy and that when I read or hear from people that Pfizer has better efficacy in the original data, I feel like I need to correct them that the data is just not there yet to be able to say with certainty that that is true. The certainty is not there. And so I would like to emphasize again, that the immunobridging is suggesting that this is a very good vaccine and the efficacy data still needs to come in the future as we get more data. Very good vaccine that we know nothing about the effectiveness. I mean, can you explain to me this? We keep hearing this term immunobriding. What does immunobritching mean?

Yeah, so this was kind of a shortcut in place of the efficacy. And they're using that. They use it because the efficacy trials, as he said, just aren't there. is just not there. So what they do is they find the titers, the antibody titers, the neutralization antibody titers in the studies, but there's no real guardrails on it. So they're not looking at this many kids here, this many kids here to do the vaccine effectiveness. They're just saying, hey, we found some titers in these kids. And they're similar to the studies that were done in adults a long time ago, two years ago. So we're just going to assume that it's going to be the same efficacy. So they basically took adult studies, said when we saw titers at this last, level. We saw the efficacy in adults was about here. So when we see these titers, we don't have the

efficacy data because we erased our placebo group and we'll never see that. But we're going to make assumptions based on the titers we saw in adults. We see some of those titers and the children, we'll say, based on immunobringing, this bridge between two different realities, two different age groups with different immune systems, different maturity immune systems, we're going to make the assumption that it's the same. That's essentially what they're doing. Okay. Against different variants yeah yeah against different variants very important and that brings us in our next clip we have dr paul off it uh anybody that watches this show should know who this guy is we've talked about him quite a bit um and he brought up a question about the variants as you spoke about we have subvariant

four five uh sub variant two one two one of this omicron variant these are like 90 percent of the current circulating variants that these children these six months old and older are going to get vaccinated against now yeah so he had a question about the strains and the study So this is for Dr. Fleming-Dutra. So thank you for that compelling presentation. You've made it clear that this can be a serious and occasionally fatal disease and young children. The data that you presented were primarily based, I guess, on Omicron, to a lesser extent, on the variants that circulated before Omicron.

Those variants, including Omicron, are largely gone from the United States. So my question to you is, do you have any information on the Omicron sub-variants like B-A-2 or B-A-2-1212 or B-A-5 that are now more commonly circulating, but they're has to be equally virulent. And in this country, about in other countries where those viruses were circulating before here? So thank you for that question.

As you said, the data that I presented are based on US epidemiology. I tried to focus on Omicron predominance, which was early, you know, BA1 and the BA2. But there are some data from prior in the pandemic. I do not have further information the epidemiology from other countries that I can share at this point. Wow.

Great. I mean, it's what I said at the top of the show. We know this. You're literally using a vaccine for the Wuhan strain, and we're like, you know, hundreds of strains away from that now, Amacron. And then I love how she says I tried to focus on Amicron, which says to me, actually a lot of his information is probably Delta and other, you know,

but wherever we could get Amacron, but it's not BA 211, I think it is, and BA4 and 5, which literally is the problem we're in now. What a catastrophe this is going to be to take these 18 million kids that haven't had a single problem, have had no issue whatsoever. Now let's go ahead and vaccinate them with an antiquated vaccine. That is, Paul Oppet just clearly pointed out, did we look at how it's going to affect the actual strains on the planet? No, once again, terrible answer. No data on that.

Okay. Right, right. That's zero at the moment. Right. Now we get into the elephant in the room and it's starting to be called out here with these comments. So really quickly at the Verbeck meeting, just like the ASIP meeting, these members had to sit through and listen to comment after comment in the comment section of parents and health professionals slamming this move to try and green light these vaccines for these kids. So we have Cody Messinier. He's a professor of pediatrics at Tuft University School of Medicine.

And he kind of just threw it right out there about communicating this extremely small risk that these kids have for COVID-19 and the issues of it to parents. Take a listen. I don't think anyone could listen to the public, the open public hearing session without being troubled by the diversity and the emotional. commitment that's been put into this issue of immunizing children between six months and five years. It was quite moving. My personal feeling is that it would be hard not to include six months to five years of age in an amendment. to the EUA in view of the strength of the data that we have seen today. But I would like to make this comment.

And I think it's very important, as Dr. Cohn said yesterday, that the communication or the messaging be made as clear as possible for parents to understand the relative risk and the relative benefit. I think we, for example, we've heard several times that there are approximately 442 deaths so far in the pandemic among children less than five. So that means about 220 deaths a year approximately. If you look at the number of people who are struck by lightning In the United States, on a year, it's 270. So we're talking about a very rare event. If we talk about hospitalizations among children

between six months and five years of age, the hospitalization rate on the CDC website, the latest site is 2.3 per 100,000, or 23 per million, And there are about 20 million children in this age group. So 20 times 23 is 460 hospitalizations associated with COVID in this age group that we're considering today. And probably only a fraction of those are because of COVID-19 infection rather than a coincidental association.

So really we'd be talking about vaccinating close to 20 million children in order to prevent two or 300 deaths. How an individual weighs the risk can benefit. I think the vaccine should be available for certainly high risk children and for families that are so concerned they are troubled by that risk ratio. and they should have access to the vaccine. But I, again, feel very strong. And parents should understand how small these numbers are.

It's a very low risk from the vaccine, but it's also a very low risk from the infection itself. And I think that has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group. Wow. You know, that actually gives us, I think, some insight into what's happening in these voting meetings. In that clearly this Dr. Cody Messonnier is saying, I don't want this vaccine given to everybody. That makes absolutely no sense. There is clearly a risk from all the parents that we're hearing getting up on microphones.

He is seeing the data with his own eyes. And so to give $20 million this vaccine for, I think he said, the $400. that were hospitalized. I think he said it's something like two per 100,000 that are being hospitalized. Folks, these are the numbers we're talking about. Why are we going to put this group at risk? He's saying everything I said. But what I think really gives me insight into the humanity, the human being side of this, because I don't, I'm one of these people, I'm not, I don't believe these people are evil. There is something that drives them to make these decisions. They want to make the world a better place themselves. But you see what it's sort of, I was watching, when I'm watching this, I think about

the times I've been had jury duty. And a courtroom works a little differently than you think where they really like narrow the hallway with which you are making a decision about. Don't make it about this, don't make it about this, forget about all the side characters, you're only being asked, is this question true or false? And you're like, but you want to talk about the rest of it.

In this case, you see how they compartmentalize these meetings. They compartmentalize them. So the discussions of how many children being injured really isn't what's happening here. it seems to me by what he's saying and why he's going to vote yes clearly is that it's really coming down to and think about yourself as a conservative man i talked a lot of conservatives now they're like you know the government should be should be making a decision for you so in their mind what they're being tasked with is should you deny your children access to this vaccine when everyone else

should get it and what he's saying is there are people whether or not doesn't use you know that they're like overly you know freaked out the media is got them freaked out, but there are people that are looking at this risk world ratio. They don't fully understand it, but I get it. The vaccine is going to make them feel better. I want to make it, you know, available to them. But really all of these healthy children out there, they don't need this. And I want the languaging to say that.

I feel like I'm picturing like a little lamb sitting there surrounded by drooling wolves saying, just hand it to his man. Oh yeah, oh yeah, we're going to put all kinds of writing out there. Don't worry. Informed consent, they'll know about all the myocarditis and all that's not going to happen. It isn't going to happen, Cody. You just handed children to the wolves, the wolves that want to make billions of dollars off their backs and don't care whether they live or die. But you see how he's making that decision.

He wants it to be available to those that want it, and that's it. Unfortunately for us, the next step will be mandating this in order to put your kid in school. And that's where this thing is just going to get horrid. But super interesting. Obviously, he's concerned. You wonder how the rest of them are just sliding. by all of the injuries that of clearly the people that stepped up on microphones there or were zooming in to say they were worried about the injuries just incredible piece of information and just to note these were unanimous decisions at both furback and cdc's a sip so we are listening

to great great questions yeah um and some pretty shocking answers but you know when it came down to put the money where your mouth is that's what happened so yeah but you know let's move on so now they started talking about injuries uh especially my Myocarditis. This is obviously a big issue for these kids, children, adolescents, teenagers, the heart inflammation, we've covered this way above background in all of these studies. And so we have Dr. Henry Bernstein. He's a New York pediatrician, and he had some really great questions to ask. Listen to this. My question relates to, and this may be a better question for the sponsor, but with concern to myocarditis, particularly. in the males after dose number two, are data available or being collected using a lengthened

interval between doses 1 and 2 in the primary series for those males 12 to 17 and those 18 to 25 young adults? Sure. Thank you for the question, Dr. Bernstein. We, in our studies, our study populations were incredibly compliant, so we don't have any clinical data at more than a four-week's duration. But we are looking at, you know, kind of observational studies to help inform that. So you're looking at a longer interval between their primary series,

the two doses of primary series and older teenagers and young adults? So we are actually not looking at it. I mean, I know there are other studies, other observational studies, such as those in Canada that have explored the longer interval. We are clinically not exploring the longer interval for adolescents. We are looking at infants and whether a longer interval would be beneficial there. Billions of dollars being spent by Joe Biden to track down people that don't trust these vaccines, to censor anybody that talks about the lack of science around it.

But no, we're not doing any studies on timing and whether or not, timing could maybe limit the swelling of our innocent children's hearts and putting them in hospitals and killing them because simply I hope they never say we don't have funding for that as Biden's been sitting just doling out ridiculous amounts of money to stop freedom of speech. All right. And that's that's Moderna's vice president of clinical vaccine development. So the one issue their vaccine has, the biggest issue is myocarditis. This guy's asking, you know, do we're going to accordion? this out, look for it a little longer time frame than just this short time frame. How about in the kids? No, we're not going to touch it. We'll leave that to real world data. Maybe fly your butt up to Canada see if you can find some studies up there because we don't have them. I mean, how convenient. There's nothing you can do about it. You can't sue us. Why would we look into it? Why would we give ourselves a bad name when we're making tens of billions of dollars? We've got no reason to do any

studies that would give you any more information on myocarditis. Maybe you should do that. Right. And so that leads us perfectly into the next clip because just before we enter this clip, so there's the vaccine injury compensation program, typically all the vaccines that are on the childhood schedule, even adult flu shots, things like that. There's injuries there. That's where people go. So these vaccine manufacturers still have liability. They have this special court through the government where they go. And that's a whole different story. But these emergency use authorization vaccines have something called a countermeasures injury compensation program. This thing has been described as a black hole. It rarely pays out to people. Someone asked about this and listened to what

they had to say. It's around the subject. I'd like to follow up. Sure. Please. Can we have confirmation that any potential harm would be covered by the countermeasure injury compensation program versus the vaccine injury compensation program? I don't know if Dr. Hastings is on for her Is able to comment? I am on and as of right now, all vaccine claims are being processed through CICP. Okay, and Dr. Hay thinks, could you just give us an update on the status of the COVID-19 injury table? I'm sorry, can you clarify? Do you mean the total number of cases? We do not have a CICP COVID-19 that's use specific table at this point, if that's the question.

the question. That is the question, but it is in development. Is that correct? It is not fully in development at this time. We're working on different positions. Okay, thank you very much for that information. This is absolutely, I mean, in some ways, I don't think a lot of people understood what's happening here. So you have the original protections given by the 1986 Act, often referenced as VICA, the Vaccinejury Compensation Act. This is a courtroom designed for all the childhood vaccines. The emergency use authorization, and I think also through the PEP Act, set up a different court system, right?

I forget what you called that. That one was called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. Countermeasures Injury Compensation. They said, how is that system working? And they basically said, oh, yeah, we're not using that. We're running through the original VICA system. Oh, okay. So if that's where it's at, you know, the table of injuries.

Have you, so there's a table of injuries. So remember, all this has happened, right? Like this light little, cause, yeah, we kind of flipped it over this other court system. Let me remind you, reported on this just a couple of weeks ago, these headlines. Vaccine injury compensation programs are overwhelmed as congressional reform languishes. They were talking about a parapederal programs compensating people who suffer injuries from vaccines and pandemic treatments are now facing so many claims that thousands of people. people may not receive payment for their injuries anytime soon. The first program meant for standard vaccines such as measles and polio has too little

staff to handle the number of reported injuries and thousands of patients are waiting years for their cases to be heard. It goes on to say between 2010 and 2020, the countermeasure injury compensation program received 500 complaints in the two years since COVID-19 appeared. It has received over 8,000 complaints. 8,000 people should COVID-19 shots become routine once the pandemic ends, alleged injuries would eventually be handled by the already overburdened standard vaccine injury compensation program, which we just heard is where they are putting these things now.

Patient advocates, attorneys, and the pharmaceutical industry fear that without drastic reforms, that program could collapse. Despite bipartisan calls for change, Congress has failed to act, frustrating those who say that the BICP, which covers nearly three times as many vaccines today as it did when it was created three decades ago, is overwhelmed. So what she's saying here is, you know, there are. 8,000, probably more at this point. That's an older article. You know, 10,000 cases, people who are injured waiting to get into court and they're not even using the court system that was set up for

this vaccine. They're running it all through the one that was already overwhelmed with all the other childhood vaccines. And then the most shocking part of what she says, which is, you know, so you have a vaccine injury table for COVID-19. Folks, this is huge. That vaccine injury table is what gives you the ability to sue. If you, you know, if you have a vaccine injury table, you, You say, you know, measles caused encephalopathy, I mean, my measles vaccine, the MMR caused encephalopathy, it's got to be on that table or you can't sue. This is why people who say, my child regress into autism, if you go to this court and say, my kid got autism right after the MMR vaccine, you will be thrown out of that court because

it does not appear on the table of injuries. You have to choose something that's on that table. So a lot of the parents out there that watch autism take place after a vaccine, their lawyers, that they have good lawyers say don't claim autism, claim the encephalopathy, the swelling of the brain that resulted in autism because that's the only thing that's on the table. And so if it's not on the table, you can't sue for it. It has to have been proven through this kangaroo court system. I've got shows all about this. But listen to what she just said. Do we have a table for COVID-19?

none. Zero. There's nothing on it. It's a zero. There's nothing there. So how do you even go in and sue for something? There's nothing in there to point to to say, look, there's no myocarditis, there's no blood clots you're telling me, there's no strokes, all the things that are being reported that the CDC's admitted to. There's no table there inside this court system. This is so shocking and inept and frankly evil. This is getting to the point of being evil, how out of control this whole thing is now getting. And with no table, if someone goes into this countermeasures injury compensation program, they're going to be forced to prove the injury against government medical experts with unlimited funding. So they don't go in there with a sweet ride like you said and

say, yeah, you know, a sore arm while it's on the table there. Soarm. You've already admitted it. They have to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. And remember, the government doesn't have to prove it didn't happen. They just have to show there if there's a possible probability it didn't happen. You're out of there. You're not getting. the funding. And guess what science they're going to? The science that says, well, actually, that was never proven because we erased our control group.

Do you see how all this starts coming together, folks? This is the whole thing. They've got this thing wrapped up in this sick, twisted little ball that we've got to break apart. Absolutely crazy. All right, Dell, audience, final clip here. Thanks for hanging with us here. So we bring in a Dr. Wayne Morasco again, and he's talking to CDC's

Dr. Catherine Fleming-Duittra. We're going to talk about her in a second a little further, but he asked a question about the messaging. How are you going to message these vaccines? Kind of interesting. Take a listen. Yeah. You show us viral effectiveness, vaccine effectiveness, really dropping off in the population after about three months and your second dose. And even if you get a third dose, there's a, there's a drop off, waiting immunity after perhaps maybe more months. So it looks like these vaccines are really only protecting, as we already know, for a period of, you know, three to six months. So my question really is, how do you message that to the people if it's really not

going to be protective for a full year? I mean, this is a CDC messaging problem because I see that why would I get the vaccine or am I going to need to get it every six months? I mean, those kind of questions arise from this kind of data. Perhaps you can address that. Sure. I mean, I think it goes to which outcome is under study. So most Most of the data that I showed where we actually had information further out from vaccination for kids was looking at infection. And so we do know that vaccines wane fairly quickly against infection during O'MCron. That was not the case with earlier variants.

But because most of the data we have for children is during Omercrown, we do see that waning against infection. We know from the adult data that the vaccines wane much, much more slowly against more severe outcomes like hospitalization. And so we would expect that since we see similar waning patterns for infection for adults and children, that we would see similar waning patterns for hospitalization for adults and children. Because hospitalization is generally more rare for children, and just because of the timing of when the vaccines came out in conjunction with the Omicron surge ending,

we don't have enough data to look at waning specifically against more severe disease, including hospitalization in children. I mean, it doesn't stop infection. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't stop infection. We don't have the data show waning and hospitalization and severe illness. I mean, that's what is supposed to be for at this point, right? Doesn't have it. So, you know, as we're sitting here, our federal health agencies, as we're seeing, are essentially doing nothing to properly test the efficacy and the safety of these vaccines. So it's going to be left up to the states. It's going to be left up to private companies to do to really, really put a stopgap measure here. And the first state really does,

jumping into that pool with both feet is Florida and Governor Ron DeSantis. So he came out after the decision at Burbank and ASIP and had this to say at public comment section. Our Department of Health has been very clear. The risks outweigh the benefits and we recommend against. That's not the same as banning it. I mean, people can access it if they want to and parents can do. But if you look at when they were doing the hearing, you had one physician say, you know,

parents are really, really frightened. We know that the risk is low. We're not sure how this is going to work, but parents are really frightened about COVID for their kids. And which I would say is, why would they be frightened about it? It's because of media hysteria. It's because of a lot of misinformation. That's why they're scared.

But to do an emergency use for a six-month-old or a one-year-old simply to placate anxiety, that's not the standard when you're doing this. The standard is, is this something that's safe and effective? And then very importantly for recommendations, does the benefit outweigh the risk? I keep forgetting that this isn't even in full authorization. It's an emergency use authorization. What emergency?

I mean, if Geert is right, we're about to have an emergency amongst the vaccinated. So please, by all means, let's add more people to that group. I mean, there is no emergency. These kids have been fine. heck is going on? And it really makes us realize when, remember, just like it was a month ago, there was this idea, should we lift the emergency and Biden and everybody wanted to reinstate it? This is why. They didn't want to get rid of the emergency, which no one is seeing around them, because they knew they wanted to have to rush these vaccines into the kids so that, I'm guessing,

so that they get an immunity protection that they could get once it goes onto the actual CDC schedule. They've got to get that rolling. Otherwise, you know, when the emergency lifts, now are they vulnerable to lawsuit, all of these huge questions, but there was no emergency. They just wanted to be able to do crappy science. The only way you're allowed to do crappy science, if you say we're in the middle of an emergency. And you have a private company now also stepping up in Florida Publix. That's a supermarket chain there with the pharmacies inside. Publix won't give COVID vaccine to children under five. So you're not going to find them there. So Walgreens, CVS, apparently. I know where I'm shopping. It's a long drive from here to Florida, but I'll make that drive just to support people that are making

good decisions like that. That's right.