Earlier today, The Gateway Pundit published a damning report released by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance explaining why Pfizer shots can do more harm than good to people.
You can read the first part here: Damning Report: Canadian COVID Care Alliance Explains Why Pfizer Shots Can Do More Harm Than Good (VIDEO)
Canadian COVID Care Alliance is consists of over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners who are committed to providing quality, balanced, evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored to normal as quickly as possible.
According to its website, the Pfizer 6 month data shows that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines cause more illness than they prevent. Also, an overview of the Pfizer trial flaws in both design and execution.
Now, let’s talk first about the 12 to 15-year-old adolescent trial. According to page 24 of their in-depth analysis, the vaccination for adolescents is really all risk and no benefit. Adolescence are at statistically zero risk of death from COVID-19 and very low risk of severe illness. Among the vaccinated kids in the trial, there’s at least one serious adverse event.
For the adolescents, inoculation is really all risk and no benefit. The trial was severely underpowered. As a study, this small will not reliably show up risk for adverse events. There was an inoculated group of 1,005 and zero of them tested positive for COVID-19 and a placebo group of 978, and 18 of them tested positive for COVID-19.
So Pfizer claimed these were great results, but since adolescence are at statistically zero risk of death from COVID-19 and very low risk of severe illness. In fact, the New York Times said in October of this year that for children without a serious medical condition, the danger of severe COVID is so low that it’s difficult to quantify.
The inoculation is of very little benefit to them, but it does present a very real risk of adverse events. However, the adolescent Pfizer study wasn’t actually designed to find adverse events because a serious adverse event, including death that occurred even in 1 out of 800 kids might not even show up in a sample size of 1,005 people. But in this case, the danger signal did come through. Among the inoculated adolescents, there was at least one serious adverse event, and her name was Maddie De Garay.
Maddie de Garay is a 12-year-old trial participant who developed a serious reaction after her second dose of the inoculation and was hospitalized within 24 hours. She developed gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, memory loss, brain fog, headaches, dizziness, fainting seizures, verbal and motor ticks, menstrual cycle issues, lost feeling from the waist down, lost bowel and bladder control, and she had to have a feeding tube because she lost her ability to eat.
She’s been hospitalized many times since then, and for the past 10 months she’s been wheelchair-bound and fed via a tube. In their report to the FDA, Pfizer described her injuries as functional abdominal pain, and there’s a link to the FDA report (page 30). This is unconscionable and certainly opens up the possibility that other adverse events have been suppressed or misrepresented.
In terms of the 5 to 11-year-old Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination trial, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance said the vaccination is an unacceptable risk to their health. Even Pfizer acknowledges the vaccine will cause myocarditis in children.
In terms of 5 to 11-year-olds, the inoculation is an unacceptable risk to their health. In this table, Pfizer using predictive modeling, acknowledges that the inoculations will cause myocarditis in children.
See the columns in red, but they optimistically claim that there will be zero deaths from this myocarditis. See the column in yellow, it’s speculation on their part, the low-level evidence of a predictive model. But let’s just say it’s true and there will be no deaths. There’s still no justification for giving children myocarditis. First do no harm should apply here. But the government has now normalized the expectation of heart problems from these inoculations among children to the point that sick kids are actually putting out brochures on how to deal with them.
The way to deal with them is don’t give them products that will harm their hearts because myocarditis is actually very serious. It’s damaged to the heart, and it’s not reversible.
So while Pfizer may be correct in that their inoculations might not cause any immediate deaths, we maintain that a one in five chance of dying in six and a half years is unequivocally, an unacceptable risk for children.
But the FDA says it is an acceptable risk for children. They have actually abandoned the first do no harm principle. Remember, medical interventions are supposed to be proven safe before they’re rolled out in the population. Yet Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the 18 members of the FDA advisory panel who voted to approve the inoculations for children from five to eleven, actually said the opposite and suggested that a population level rollout was an appropriate way to test for adverse events.
A German news site actually put together a list of over 75 known cases of athletes collapsing and even dying in the last five months. These incidents are supposed to be rare and we can’t ignore that they no longer are.
Remember when the whole world went into panic mode and shut down over a few fake videos of Chinese people collapsing, but crickets over dozens and dozens of real instances of people most specifically athletes collapsing.
Pfizer also admits in their report that their studies weren’t powered to find rare side effects because their long-term immune response efficacy and safety data is limited.
In addition to admitting that their inoculations can cause myocarditis Pfizer also admits right in their report that their long-term immune response efficacy and safety data is limited and that their studies weren’t powered to find rare side effects.
And that’s true, as the inoculation was only tested on about 1500 kids, how many parents know that? How many would take their kids to get this shot if they were informed of this? The law of informed consent says that they should be, but it’s not happening.
The British Medical Journal, one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world, has actually called Pfizer out for serious issues in the execution of their trials. On November 2, 2021, they released an article about their investigation into Ventavia, which was one of the research companies that Pfizer hired to conduct the trials.
The Whistleblower is a regional director who actually reported her company to the FDA for falsifying data for unblinding participants, for not following up and testing participants who reported symptoms and for mislabeling specimens. Several other employees backed up her account. Despite all this, neither Pfizer nor the FDA ever audited or investigated the research company. Pfizer never disclosed the problems in its emergency use authorization application, and in fact, Fisr has now hired that same researcher, Ventavia, to run four more COVID-19 trials. So all this to say that it’s not surprising that we’re seeing the issues that we are in the six-month trial report and also in the six-month report, Pfizer actually manipulated their efficacy data.
They took the results from their adult trial, which started in July of 2020, and then they mixed in the results from the twelve to 15-year-old trial, despite the fact that the adolescent trial actually started four months later. So since it’s well known that the efficacy of the inoculations wanes over time, this gave a false boost to the efficacy numbers. The efficacy of those two cohorts should have been reported separately, not presented as one combined result, but without that boost, their efficacy number likely would have fallen.
You can watch the detailed presentation below to know more and some damning revelations. We also included the PDF version of the presentation below. (Skip to 19:50 if you have seen the video on the first part)