The Highwire with Del Bigtree - HOW DID THE COVID VACCINE GET APPROVED FOR KIDS

Episode Date: July 2, 2022

Diagnostic Pathologist, Dr. Clare Craig, shares shocking evidence on the measures used by health authorities to falsify Covid vaccine efficacy for children, as well as the real safety risks and what is yet to come.CORRECTION: Dr. Craig stated the placebo children who were unblinded and vaccinated had 6 weeks of follow-up, but in fact it was 6 months.However, the safety data presented to the FDA is based on only 6 weeks of unblinded follow-up data after the 3rd dose.#DrClareCraig #FDAApprovalBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The CDC Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend the shots for infants as young as six months old. Committee members said the protection offered by the vaccines outweighs its risk. Parents, caregivers, and health care providers can trust that both of these vaccines have been authorized with science and safety at the forefront of our minds. The benefits definitely outweigh the complications and things that may happen with COVID. And we don't want that. This is a serious disease in children. More than 1,000 kids have died about 440 under the age of four. We've seen, as you said, tens of thousands of hospitalizations in this age segment.

As always, we are going to have to continue to look at the data as more and more kids get the vaccine and make sure that what we see in this initial sample size is actually holding true. We now know, based on rigorous scientific review, that the vaccines available here in the United States can be used safely and effective objectively in children under five. Tape and effective. All right. Well, look, we heard the questions, we heard the answers, but what was the data they were referencing? I wanted to get deep into the data, and so we reached out to a pathologist named Claire Craig

has been doing videos on this, writing about this. It's just my honor and pleasure to be joined by her now. So, Claire, thank you for the time, first of all. Thanks, everyone so much for inviting me. You bet. So I'm going to let you take it from here because, you know, by the way, we saw your video. It was fantastic on YouTube. That was taken down, is my understanding, right? Yeah, it was taken down, and I appealed, and it's still down. It's apparently misinformation. All right. So why you go ahead and lay that misinformation on us, shall you?

I mean, at this point, we know exactly what we're talking about. But take me through the details, because we just listened to questions and answers. They have no answers. It just sounds like somebody cheated on their book report, read the back cover, and somehow based on that, we're being told this is science going on here. So how bad is it? I mean, the way that people have extrapolated

for their sound bites, I just find utterly extraordinary. It's really bad. And to be honest, it's a gift for us. It's an absolute gift because it's so bad, it's quite easy to explain. explain to everybody how bad it is and why. So, you know, we couldn't have asked for a more messed up trial. So the story I'm going to tell you really is a story about shifting goalposts. And it starts with Pfizer deciding what the gold posts are going to be in the first place, which obviously you would

hope would be someone else's decision. Right. Not the one going to make the billions of dollars, but the ones that are actually regulating this. That's who should be said in the gold post. But no, Pfizer is setting their own goalpost. Okay. Yeah. So I'll take you through what they plan to do and then the efficacy by their different measures and then I'll talk about safety and then what they're planning to do at the end. So they set out to do this trial on 4,500 children giving them two doses. And obviously if you're Pfizer, in fact, if you're us, right, and somebody comes to you and says, I want to test this drug on thousands of children, we're going to say why, right, why? What are you trying to do? because without knowing what you're trying to achieve, we don't know what to measure. But of course, Pfizer's looking at this from a different perspective. And so they set out to get a positive result.

And the way they did that was to say, well, let's not look at a clinical outcome as a primary measure. Let's look at antibody blood tests as a primary measure because we're pretty sure we can make that work. So their protocol from the outset was that they would measure antibody levels. And they were going to compare these to the antibody levels from all the people who've been in other trials and say if the levels are similar, that must mean it works. Right. And their opening paragraph in their own report on effectiveness, they say immunobridging, which is this comparing the antibody levels, does not have to be scientifically established to predict protection, but should be clinically relevant to the disease. So they've already admitted that it's not about protection. It's just a measure that they fancy using.

And then they go on saying, which is completely truthful, there is no specific neutralizing antibody tighter that has been established to predict protection against COVID-19, which is absolutely true. So this is a measure that is arbitrary, but it's relatively easy for them to hit the target. So they're basically just said, we're going to hit a target,

but there's no proof that that target means anything when it comes to the actual clinical outcomes. So an arbitrary target, but we're going to hit it, and that's all you're going to get. That's amazing. Yeah, that was the plan. And, you know, I don't know how it got passed in Ethics Committee. I really don't. It should never have been passed. But going on from that, then, after two doses, this is the result that they had.

They presented this to the FDA as a bar chart. And it shows in the blue bars, you can see the antibody levels to the Wuhan virus. And in purple is the Omicron virus. Oh, my God. What they set out, you know, when they think, oh, we can make that work. That'll work. That was true for Wuhan because that's what they were being injected with. But it didn't work at all for Omicron.

So that dotted line that says LOD, LOD stands for a limit of detection, everything beneath that is background noise. There's nothing. Zero. So they took a breather and they said, right, well, let's just change the protocol. And they decided to change the protocol by adding in a third dose. And obviously, you know, it seems that they have endless ability to change their protocols. Nobody seems to be managing their changes and shifts in these protocols. So they set about adding in a third dose. Now what had happened at this point is that the children been vaccinated with a first dose. They waited three weeks and then gave them a second dose. And then they were in the follow-up period. And by the time they decided to give a third

dose, children were at least eight weeks beyond that second dose. But some of them were substantially beyond it. The median was 11 weeks. So you've got a really drawn-out process here because they haven't really thought it through. Anyway, if we go to the next slide, it shows you quite how few patients or participants had made it to this stage. So if you look at the third row there, it'll show you how many had actually had a third dose in each of the groups. And it's roughly 1,500 children who were given a third dose at all before this date was presented.

And there was only 1,200 odd who had had a month's follow-up following that. So, you know, this is, it's very, very preliminary. It's as if, you know, they just found this tiny moment in time when they wanted to shout about their result, and they just stopped and did it then, which is actually will come to that. That is exactly what they did. I would say a couple of things that I would be suspicious of right there.

First of all, we're being told this is a study of 4,500 kids, but it's not. It's a study of just over 1,000 kids. But once you start seeing people disappear from a study, that seems to me that now you are selecting who you want to be looking at. I don't know how to see that any other way. Did they give us a reasoning or a protocol why those other 3,000 disappeared and what parameters they used to take them out of the study,

or did they just disappear? So when I made that video that went on the internet, I misspoke and called it drop out. It's not really drop out. There was a small number that had dropped out. It's mostly children that haven't had a third dose. So they, you know, had the two and they're sort of in limbo. Yeah.

You know, they haven't given a reason why they haven't progressed, but they could, they could portray it as having not progressed. All right. So we got a thousand now. We're looking at just under 1,200. Yeah. But it's important to note that, you know, if you set out to do a trial in 4,500 children, there's a reason that number is selected.

It's not random. It's selected on the basis of statistical analysis and how many you need in order to do it. demonstrate an effect. So if you've got only a third of that, that just raises huge questions because it could make it completely null and void. And, you know, the reason that you ask statisticians to be involved to get the right number at the beginning of a trial is because it's utterly unethical to inject people, especially children, with a chemical to try and learn something, if at the end of it you can't possibly learn anything because you didn't do enough. So, you know, there are issues with having these tiny numbers.

And I think to be clear, if I remember correctly, in one of the videos we played, the doctor said that it was something like a 2.6% per 100,000 hospitalization rate. So if you're only looking at 1,000 kids, you're not going to see what would have put them in the hospital, what doesn't put them in the hospital, whether this vaccine stops. So that's partly why they're not even attempting to show any clinical result. They're just going to play this arbitrary. Heiter's target game, which they already failed after the two shots. But hey, let's just make it a three shot dose and then maybe we'll get there with with one

fourth amount of kids we started with. We're off to a great start. This is fantastic. Science said it's best. Yeah, the excuse they gave was that it required three doses for the adults for Omicron. So it figures that you'd need three. Yeah.

The children that have never had a scene of any type. And that doesn't follow logically for me at all. and also we know how short-lived this was for Omicron in adults. So there's no mention in the whole report about how long they expect any effect to last. Yeah. If you go to the next slide, it shows what they found. So they have, this is in terms of actual COVID rather than antibody, so they did talk about the COVID rates. And the very first row that you see there, I think it's the next slide actually.

The first row that you see tells you the total number for the whole period. and then they've divided it up. So that next row is that three-week period between the first dose and the second dose. Now, we know from plenty of other studies that this is a danger period and that there's negative efficacy in that period. And although the numbers are small,

yet again, here we see negative efficacy in the younger and the older half of the trial to the tune of minus 30, which means if you were vaccinated, you are 30% more likely to get COVID in that period. And as I say, you know, it's small numbers. So you can't say that for certain. But yet again, there's more evidence that that's a danger.

If you're going to glean anything from your tiny little crappy study, is that it's having a negative effect. Now, you're the ones that have these small numbers. We didn't choose those. But these are bad results. These are not good results. These are bad results amongst this small little group we're looking at. That's right.

So they ignored that. And they then had this longer period of time between the second dose and the third dose where, you know, there was plenty of COVID, right? There was a lot going on and they ignored all of that. They then ignored a week after the third dose because that sort of become traditional. And they looked at the number of cases after that. And so that bottom row is what they were basing their claims of efficacy on, those teeny, tiny numbers in that bottom row.

And the next slide shows them. Oh, I'm not right. And what I'm seeing here is two cases and five cases, two people, and five people? Yep. So don't forget, actually, it's important to note that the placebo group is only half the size. So to kind of balance it out, it's more like two and ten. Two and ten.

Okay. Yeah. So almost 12 total kids, perhaps, is the entire, what this science study has finally reduced itself down to. We're going to decide the fate of all children in the world. based on seven children. Okay. That's pretty much what happened.

So there's a total across the trial of 10 COVID cases, split seven placebo-3 vaccine. And the next slide shows the slide they presented to the FDA, you know, using these tiny, tiny numbers in the second and third row, to claim the efficacy of 82 and 76%. And you can. see in brackets there the confidence intervals inevitably crossing zero because you cannot get significance with numbers that tiny and for the older children the range went right down to minus

370 which means the vaccinated like within this data it could be that the vaccinated in a worst case scenario were 3.7 times more likely to get COVID the and the placebo one. That's how great their data was. Bring that slide back up. I mean, I want to bring that slide back up, because I want to point something out. We've talked about this before.

I know we get science here on the show, but look at that yellow box. And what we're talking about is inside those parentheses, when you have a negative, negative eight there, and then as high as, this is the confidence interval to as high as 98.3 is, as we pointed out, a negative 370 up to 99.6. My understanding of science,

and it's not that deep, but if you cross the zero line, If you go from a negative to a positive, that means there's really no information here to take seriously. At that point, we have to assume that this product does no better than the placebo did. You cannot cross the zero and call it statistically significant information. It's a wash. It's information that should just be thrown in the garbage, but this is what they base this entire thing on. Yeah, that's all true. Then there's a little bit of something extra to talk about in terms of what happens.

happened after the three doses, which they sort of, they talk about in a couple of paragraphs, but then gloss over entirely. So they have a couple of paragraphs dedicated to the issue of children who had multiple infections. Now, they're not very good at defining what that means, because, you know, the follow-up was around six months right from the beginning. It was a long, you know, it's a long enough period. But clearly we all know that there are issues with post-infectious positives and so defining a second infection is is something that you need to do carefully um and the of these children who had a second infection there were 12 of them all together so this is a huge number given that 10 of them were after the third dose so and and 10 of them were vaccinated

so this could completely change these results utterly and I don't understand why those aren't included in this table. It could be that some of the children were in the placebo arm originally. And they were three of them in that case. And they crossed over six weeks after their third dose or second of placebo and were then vaccinated. And by the time they got to their third dose of vaccine, they were infected again. But it doesn't make sense to not include these but of course if you don't want to include them you'll say oh no no no no we're not talking about COVID cases we're talking about people how many of these people have been infected they've already been infected so we can ignore that do you see so there's quite a distortion there

and they really haven't been clear on that and they should be being picked up on that so there is so much to this that you've laid out but let me just understand this you start out and this is one of the problems I've had with all of the Pfizer studies all the Moderna trials they throw out so much important data. The biggest issue being that what we've seen right after that first shot, right after every one of these shots, you have a real dip in your immune system. Your immune system actually drops, which is what one of Geert Van Bosh's problems, has been vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic. You are coming in contact with this virus while you're vaccinating. And so taking the vaccine is putting you at a higher risk. And as we see in all of these studies,

lots of people get infected right after they had that first shot because their immune system isn't fighting at all. Same thing happens after the second shot and even the third shot. And so once again here, all of that data, when they're making a decision whether this is a good vaccine for our kids, they throw out all the kids that got sick, all the kids that were hospitalized after the first and second shot that are being hospitalized because of those shots. They say, well, this, we only want to look at how well it works after you get your third shot. You can't throw out this entire army of carnage that is laying in the wake of your vaccine program just because they had to wait to get the third shot and along that road, that

road that you're only on because of vaccination, you're ending up in hospitals, you're ending up getting sick, you end up having issues. All of that is being burned and thrown out so that we're just looking at this last 12 kids. That is the biggest problem I have of all of this thing. These vaccines clearly are raising your risk and all they want to talk about is if you're you happen to be one of the rare 12 out of 4,500 that made it to your third freaking shot. Well, and got COVID. And got COVID.

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And it's worth just taking the whole, putting it into numbers, there's out of those 10 children that they presented for the efficacy data, that was 10 out of 375 total COVID cases that they measured. That's 2.7% of the COVID that was happened in that period. It's just ridiculously tiny. Wow. So let's move on to what they called severe COVID. Now, we all know that these children are not at risk of severe COVID and, you know,

Pfizer had to admit that. So they had to redefine what severe COVID meant and they defined it as being a raised heart rate or a raised respiratory rate or a low oxygen level. And then they found fair amount actually. So in the under twos, they just had one who was a 14 month old who had placebo. placebo and then had a fever and a cough and went to the medics who found rhinovirus or enterovirus on board and nine days later went to the ER after a seizure at that point having tested negative for COVID before they were tested again and in the hospital the test came back positive so this was described as a COVID case but I think you could absolutely argue it they were

home that day. So, you know, there was this child who obviously had a bit of a miserable experience. I mean, I don't want to diminish it. And that was a placebo patient. And then in the older half, so the two to four-year-olds, there were seven that they called severe. And of those seven, six had had vaccine. There was one placebo patient who only had placebo, and there were two two placebo patients who again were unblinded, crossed over, had vaccine and then had severe COVID by this definition. And one of those patients was admitted to hospital with low oxygen and with wheeze and they found this patient was positive for para influenza virus, which is nasty actually for a child. And they spent three days in hospital before being discharged. So you've got a vaccine

hospital case and a placebo hospital case, both with other viruses on board. we're kind of at a position of still saying, you know, really COVID isn't the main issue there. Wow. But we had all these other severe cases, if you want to call them severe, but they were in the vaccinated. And what they do manage to do is summarize all the reasons why you should ignore their data, which was kind of them. They did bullet points. So they said, first of all, the time that they followed up for and the number of cases was too small. so you can't precisely estimate everything, which we can agree with.

They said that it's all preliminary, because in their own protocol, the time for the interim analysis was after 21 cases. They only had 10 by their own definitions, you know, of this sort of after seven days thing. They only had 10. So they haven't even reached the analysis point anyway. They admit that these dosing intervals are wildly variable, and that means that people won't really know how to interpret any of it, and that the follow-up has been tiny.

They have 35 days in the youngest kids and 40 in the 2 to 4-year-olds. So this is their own analysis of it. It's quite good, really, but obviously nobody's been highlighting that to the FDA or to the media. And then they shift the goalpost again. So actually, we just go through how they've shifted the goalpost. They start off with goalposts where they want. They shift them by adding in the third dose.

And then they shift it, excuse me, by changing the, by redefining what severe is. They're just constantly deciding how things go. And they stay quite clearly what the goalposts were meant to be for safety. So the FDA set out saying, we want to see a trial where 500 to 3,000 children are followed up for at least six months. so that we can assess safety in a fair way. And then they also say the longer term follow up of a year would be an important thing to have, but we won't actually not license you if we can't get a year.

So in their original protocol, that was what they said they would follow up for six months before crossover. But what actually happened was that they followed up for six weeks and then crossed over. So this tiny, half-sized controlled control, group has only had six weeks follow up as the placebo before they were vaccinated, meaning that we have no control group anymore.

Wow. So I mean, I know that's a familiar story to your listeners, but it's, it's just absolutely, it's just wrong. It's wrong. And they state in their own document what it should have happened to contrast with what they did. Wow. I mean, it's so disturbing. I mean, and you're right.

In some ways, this is a gift. COVID, this pandemic's been a gift. The rushing this vaccine has been a gift because the work that we've done with my nonprofit using lawsuits against government health agencies, we proved that not a single childhood vaccine on the childhood schedule in the United States of America ever had a proper placebo study. No placebo was used in any of the studies that licensed these products to be given to children in America. They never went longer than six months. And in many cases, not as long as six weeks.

And in the case of the hepatitis B vaccine given on the first day of life, that had either four or a five-day safety trial. You can't make this stuff up. Now, luckily for us, they're doing it in prime time right in front of our eyes. And what I have to say is this, that I didn't know you before COVID. I didn't know all the Peter McCullough's and the world-renowned scientists that have stepped up, the Geert van den Bosch's, but I believe this, the one thing that they have destroyed that they had on their side was this idea that they had the consensus of science. They no longer do. People like yourself and other world-renowned scientists all around the world, the jig is up. They're staring at this. They're shocked. This is going to push anybody

with any doctor or scientist that still has an ounce of blood moving through their brains are going to be out of their minds. The CDC and the FDA, I believe, destroyed, finally flattened any remaining ounce of credibility they have, now all of science is going to turn on them. I don't see how they get through this. I only am upset for the children that will be lost, those that will be hurt by this product because of the decision that's been made. But I want to thank you for bringing this information to light. It doesn't matter that your YouTube went down. It makes you more popular in our eyes the millions of people that are watching us. So Dr. Claire Craig, please keep up the good

work and let us know as we track all this, we love having you on and sharing these detail with us. Is there anything last thought that you want to sort of leave the audience with that are, you know, I have friends that are dealing with custody issues where the spouse wants to give the vaccine or that are having to consider it on some level. What are your thoughts? Actually, the one thought I'd like to leave you on is slightly negative, but I think it's worth adding, which is that there are two paragraphs in this document which are frightening about the future. So they, state that they anticipate needing a fourth dose in these children. They're like already setting it up

for a fourth dose already in these tiny children. And then they say, if another COVID vaccine is licensed or authorized for use in the age group enrolled in the trial and is recommended by public health authorities and widely available, such that it is unethical to use a placebo control, the license to authorize COVID-19 vaccine would serve as a control. So this potentially, this six-week follow-up with that placebo might be the last control that we see in children this age for these vaccines. Wow. We talked about this is what we're talking about when we talked about writing into the FDA and the CDC right now saying you cannot use this as a control. You did not establish safety.

This is not good enough. You cannot not do future studies with future vaccines and their contents. so disturbing, really scary, but it's so obvious now the people we need to rise up and make a difference here. Dr. Claire Craig, thank you for taking the time to enlighten us on this information today. All right, and people can follow you on Twitter. Where's your Twitter? What's the best Twitter to give to you on? I'm Claire Craig Pass. There is. All right, there we go. Follow Claire Craig on Twitter for all of these details.

You'll be on top of it for everyone else. Have a blessed day. Thank you, Claire. Thank you very much.