Pathologist Dr. Clare Craig found that Pfizer’s trial data for COVID jabs in 6-month old babies was ‘ignored’ and ‘twisted’ to satisfy FDA regulations.
By David McLoone Global Research, June 28, 2022
LifeSiteNews 24 June 2022
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
A British pathologist and researcher has said that Pfizer’s clinical trial for its COVID jabs in babies as young as six months old contains so many egregious flaws and misrepresentations that “the trial should be deemed null and void.”
Diagnostic pathologist and co-chair of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) group, Dr. Clare Craig recorded a six-minute video analyzing the data from Pfizer’s COVID jab trial in children aged between six months and four years old.
Collating information from Pfizer’s June 15 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use of the drug in young children, Craig discovered that the vaccinated cohort contracted the virus in greater numbers than the placebo group, but that the pharmaceutical giant misreported the data to instead show that the “vaccine” was marginally more effective at preventing infection than foregoing the shot.
“There’s an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me, and I think it will shock you too,” Craig said in opening.
The former NHS consultant noted that the trial had “recruited 4526 children aged from six months to four years old” but that “3000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial.”
“That is a huge number, two-thirds of them,” Craig emphasized. “Why was there this drop off? That needs to be answered and without an answer to that on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void.”
Craig explained – and appendix B of the EUA application confirmed – that the Pfizer trial appear to have lowered the bar for what the was considered to be a case of “severe COVID” in children, qualifying cases as such if participants expressed “a slightly raised heart rate or a few more breaths per minute.” Before the vaccine trial, however, a child was considered to have severe COVID if they required mechanical ventilation, dialysis, or other invasive treatments.
“What they did was to utterly twist the data,” Craig declared.
“There were six children aged 2 to 4 who had ‘severe COVID’ in the vaccine group but only one in the placebo group. So, on that basis, the likelihood that this vaccine is actually causing ‘severe COVID’ is higher than the likelihood that is isn’t,” she stated, highlighting that “there was actually one child who was hospitalized in this trial. They had a fever and a seizure. They had been vaccinated.”
The proposed regimen for children taking Pfizer’s COVID jab was three doses, the first two taken three weeks apart while the final dose of the “primary series” would be given after a further eight weeks.
Within the initial three-week period,
“34 of the vaccinated children got COVID and only 13 in the placebo group, which worked out as a 30 percent increased chance of catching COVID in that three-week period if you were vaccinated,” Craig said. “So they ignored that data, and then there was an eight-week gap between the second dose and the third dose, where again, children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arm [group]. They ignored that data.”
Craig claimed that Pfizer trial scientists ignored further weeks of viral case data following the third dose, in total disregarding “97 percent of the COVID that occurred during the trial,” preferring to include the smallest COVID case samples.
Seven days after the second round of shots, vaccine efficacy was averaging around 24 percent among 3,954 children.
“[I]n the end they were comparing three children in the vaccine arm who had COVID with seven in the placebo arm” who did not have the virus after the third jab. Pfizer thus claimed an average efficacy of 78.9 percent from among just ten children “and they said that this showed that the vaccine was effective,” Craig stated.
The trial also accounted for children who contracted the novel coronavirus twice in the two-month follow-up period, the doctor explained, noting that “there were 12 children who had COVID twice and all but one of them were vaccinated, mostly with three doses.”
“You have to wonder what on earth they’re thinking when the claim of reduction in COVID only affected four children and here we have twelve children who got COVID twice, eleven of them vaccinated,” she said.
Recapping, Craig stressed that the trial had lost two-thirds of its participants before concluding that the COVID jab was only found to be effective against the virus on the basis of three COVID cases versus seven – a marginal difference – “and all of this on the backdrop of a disease which doesn’t affect children and with no long-term safety data.”
“Babies are not at risk from COVID, and now we have Pfizer who are presenting this as evidence to the FDA in order to apply for an EUA,” she continued before asking “how an ethics committee could have approved this trial in babies.”
“EUA is meant for a situation where there’s a risk of serious injury or death. Now, children under five 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 serious injury or death,” Craig remarked.
Craig found support from Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice president at Pfizer who has been an outspoken opponent of the “lies” of the pharmaceutical company and the mainstream media regarding the apparent safety of the jabs.
Writing on his popular Telegram channel, Yeadon said that Craig “exposes the utter corruption within the Pfizer clinical trial in young & very young children” in her six-minute video analysis. “You will struggle to believe they were permitted to conduct a trial of the design that Dr. Craig summarizes.”
“You’ll also struggle to believe,” he continued, “that based on this train wreck of a data package, the FDA committee voted unanimously for this agent to be administered to very young children from six months of age. It’s monstrous that anyone could contemplate injecting young children because they’re not at risk of severe outcomes & death from COVID-19”
Yeadon lamented that “parents have been lied to so consistently that sadly I do expect a lot of children are going to be poisoned & some even killed.”
Craig highlighted the backtracking already performed on the part of Pfizer and even the World Health Organization (WHO), both of which prematurely marketed the COVID jabs as reducing transmission of the virus before data soon confirmed that “vaccines” do not stop infection or transmission.
They do not even claim to reduce hospitalization, but the measurement of success is in preventing severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease. Moreover, there is strong evidence that the “vaccinated” are just as likely to carry and transmit the virus as the “unvaccinated.”
“If we turn to safety,” Craig continued, “what they did is they followed up the patients for six weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them,” resulting in the children who had been given the placebo, thus acting as the control group, receiving the jab, “so that’s your safety control gone forever.”
According to Pfizer’s own trial data, the company recognized an increased rate of severe cases of heart inflammation pericarditis and myocarditis with the experimental mRNA shots.
“Post-EUA safety surveillance reports received by FDA and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] identified increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7-days following administration of the second dose of the 2-dose primary series …The highest reporting rates have been in males 12 through 17 years of age,” the EUA application reads.
Concluding, Craig stated that “there are other issues” in the trial and EUA application which she did not touch on, yet “the fact that this trial existed at all is unbelievable.”
“Parents should be demanding that the decision makers explain themselves,” she said.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
The original source of this article is LifeSiteNews