On May 10, 2021, the FDA authorized the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine for use in children 12 years of age and older in the USA. Following suit, the EMA has suggested that youngsters in the EU who are 12 years old and older receive the Pfizer vaccine.
Because of this, there is no reason to have any doubt that the MHRA will follow the FDA’s and EMA’s lead and likewise give the Pfizer vaccine emergency use authorization for use in children 12 years of age and older.
But did you know that according to Pfizer’s clinical trials on kids between the ages of 12 and 15, 86% of those who received at least one dose of the vaccine experienced mild to severe side effects?
On May 10, 2021, the FDA authorized the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine for use in children 12 years of age and older in the USA. Following suit, the EMA has suggested that youngsters in the EU who are 12 years old and older receive the Pfizer vaccine.
Because of this, there is no reason to have any doubt that the MHRA will follow the FDA’s and EMA’s lead and likewise give the Pfizer vaccine emergency use authorization for use in children 12 years of age and older.
But did you know that according to Pfizer’s clinical trials on kids between the ages of 12 and 15, 86% of those who received at least one dose of the vaccine experienced mild to severe side effects?
The information is publicly available and contained within an FDA fact sheet which can be viewed here (see page 25, table 5 on-wards).
Two tables in that data sheet provide worrisome information about the side effects and damage suffered by 12- to 15-year-old kids who had at least one dosage of the Pfizer mRNA “vaccine” (gene therapy).
Only 1,097 of the 1,127 children who received the first dosage of the mRNA vaccine also received the second dose, according to the tables. This fact alone begs the issue of why 30 kids did not receive a second dosage of the Pfizer vaccine, and we have our doubts about the answer’s aesthetics.
A startling 86% of the 1,127 kids who received the vaccine for the first time had a negative reaction. A startling 78.9% of the 1,097 kids who received a second dosage of the vaccine had an unfavorable reaction.
20.3% of the 1,127 children who received the Pfizer vaccine’s first dose and 39.3% of the 1,097 children who received it twice both reported fever, according to Table 6 in the FDA fact sheet.
Sixty-six percent of the kids who received the second dose also felt fatigued, compared to another 60.1% of the kids who received the first dose.
A headache was also experienced by an additional 55.3% of the kids who received the first dose and 64.5% of the kids who got the second dose.
Chills were also experienced by 27.6% of the children who received the first dose, and by 41.5% of the children who received the second dose. Vomiting occurred in 2.8% of the children who received the first dose and 2.6% of the children who received the second dose.
Diarrhea is the FDA’s final specified adverse reaction. 8.0% of the 1,127 kids who got the first dosage experienced diarrhea. 5.9% of the 1,097 kids who received a second dosage of the medication developed diarrhea.
It’s alarming to see that the trial was permitted to continue and that the same kids received a second dosage of the vaccine despite the fact that 86% of them had reported an adverse reaction after the first dose.
The FDA report also mentions that 0.04% experienced an extremely serious adverse event, but it doesn’t elaborate on the specific types of reactions that took place. 0.04% might seem insignificant, but let’s put it in context. There are roughly 4 million kids in the UK between the ages of 12 and 15 years old. According to the study, 1,600 children might experience a very serious adverse reaction after receiving just one dosage of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which could also include death.
We should expect to see that number rise to about 5,200 if this is subsequently extended to children under the age of 12 and a similar rate of extremely serious adverse reactions happens.
However, it is important to remember that the study found that 86% of recipients experienced a negative reaction. This indicates that 3.4 million children aged 12 to 15 who receive just one dose of the Pfizer vaccine are likely to experience a negative reaction.
We are perplexed by how medical regulators came to the conclusion that the advantages of these experimental vaccines exceed the risks when we contrast this rate with the actual risk of children even mildly exhibiting the purported Covid-19 sickness.
And these are experimental vaccines, the FDA document even tells the public this in which it states the following –
‘The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12 years of age and older under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).‘
Additionally, the FDA affirms in its fact sheet that all Covid vaccines, including the Pfizer vaccine, are still undergoing clinical studies.
There could be serious and unexpected negative effects.
This link (https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download) in your article goes to an FDA page that says it doesn’t exist or is out of date? What did the page look like before they made it ‘out of date’?
Thanks,
Buddy
Clearly you live in a warped reality if you drew the above conclusions from the data provided. Instead of stupidly highlighting the 3% who didn’t get a 2nd vaccine, maybe focus on the overwhelming 97% of parents who were happy to give their child a 2nd dose. Clearly the ‘adverse’ effects you are trying to scaremonger people about were nothing for those 97% to worry about. It’s also funny how you made zero reference to all the ‘adverse’ reactions from a placebo. With such a high number of ‘fatigue’ side effects reported by kids from a basic placebo, the vaccine responses relating to fatigue (the highest side effect) is clearly unreliable. The only news story here is about parents trying to do the right thing and protect their kids from Covid. Just more fake news from a dimwit author trying to push a dangerous agenda.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is ramping up pressure on the FBI and IRS to release unredacted records related to Jeffrey Epstein, insisting the public deserves full transparency regarding his associates and financial dealings.
In a letter addressed to newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Blackburn, 72, demanded the agencies provide “complete, unredacted records” regarding Epstein, including flight logs, surveillance footage, and financial documents.
“This critical information identifying every individual who could have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abhorrent conduct is long overdue,” Blackburn wrote. “The survivors of Mr. Epstein’s horrific crimes want transparency and accountability, and they—and the American people—deserve nothing less.”
Epstein, a disgraced financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in July 2019 on federal child sex trafficking charges. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell a month later, with the official ruling being suicide. His death has fueled years of speculation and demands for answers regarding his extensive network of associates.
Demands for Full Disclosure
Blackburn is specifically seeking the unredacted flight logs from Epstein’s private jet and helicopter, along with his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s records, including the infamous “little black book.” Additionally, she is calling for the release of surveillance footage from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, which was allegedly a hub for his illicit activities.
While redacted versions of these documents have previously surfaced online or been included in lawsuits, Blackburn argues that the full versions must be made public. “Since Mr. Epstein’s death in 2019, there is still much about this tragic case that is not known—including the names of his associates that are listed in the flight logs of his private jet and in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book,’” she wrote.
Beyond the FBI, Blackburn is also pressing the IRS for records detailing Epstein and Maxwell’s financial dealings. She is requesting “any and all” documents revealing individuals and entities that had financial relationships with them.
FBI Director Patel’s Pledge
During his confirmation hearing last month, Patel assured Blackburn that he would “absolutely” work with her to bring more transparency to Epstein’s case files. However, it remains unclear how far he will go in releasing sensitive documents, particularly given past concerns over revealing the names of individuals who met with Epstein but were not implicated in criminal activity.
Blackburn has been a consistent advocate for obtaining these records. She previously urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the files and pressed former FBI Director Christopher Wray on the issue. In December 2023, Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team would “figure out if there’s more information we can provide” on Epstein, but no follow-up information was ever released.
“Director Wray never provided any such follow-up information,” Blackburn noted in her letter to Patel. “Over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have all of the necessary information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.”
The demand for transparency on Epstein’s network is gaining momentum. Last week, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list is “sitting on my desk” as it undergoes review for potential release.
As the pressure mounts, Patel and O’Donnell now face a crucial decision: whether to follow through on their promises of transparency or continue withholding key documents that could shed light on one of the most notorious criminal cases of the century. The American people, as Blackburn asserts, are watching—and waiting.
Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?
In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.
Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.
FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.
A “Gift” to Organized Crime
Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.
Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.
Unintended Consequences for Public Health
While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.
Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.
National Security and Economic Concerns
Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.
Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.
Balancing Public Health and Freedom
The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.
As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.
A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.
McDonald’s has announced plans to scale back certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing a “shifting legal landscape” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions.
The fast-food corporation intends to retire specific diversity goals for senior leadership positions and discontinue a program that encouraged suppliers to implement diversity training and enhance minority representation within their leadership teams. Additionally, McDonald’s will pause participation in external surveys that assess workplace inclusion, a move similar to recent actions by companies like Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co.
Despite these changes, McDonald’s emphasizes its ongoing commitment to fostering an inclusive environment. The company reports that 30% of its U.S. leaders come from underrepresented groups and that it has achieved gender pay equity across all levels since setting that goal in 2021. McDonald’s also plans to continue supporting efforts to maintain a diverse base of employees, suppliers, and franchisees, and will keep reporting its demographic information.
This development aligns with a broader trend among major corporations reassessing their DEI strategies in response to legal and societal shifts. Companies such as Walmart, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson have similarly rolled back diversity programs following the Supreme Court’s ruling and subsequent conservative backlash.
Buddy Broerman
July 16, 2023 at 12:29 am
This link (https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download) in your article goes to an FDA page that says it doesn’t exist or is out of date? What did the page look like before they made it ‘out of date’?
Thanks,
Buddy
Pingback: 86% of Children Suffered an Adverse Reaction to the Pfizer Covid Vaccine in Clinical Trial - Dr. Rich Swier
James
July 21, 2023 at 9:52 pm
Clearly you live in a warped reality if you drew the above conclusions from the data provided. Instead of stupidly highlighting the 3% who didn’t get a 2nd vaccine, maybe focus on the overwhelming 97% of parents who were happy to give their child a 2nd dose. Clearly the ‘adverse’ effects you are trying to scaremonger people about were nothing for those 97% to worry about. It’s also funny how you made zero reference to all the ‘adverse’ reactions from a placebo. With such a high number of ‘fatigue’ side effects reported by kids from a basic placebo, the vaccine responses relating to fatigue (the highest side effect) is clearly unreliable. The only news story here is about parents trying to do the right thing and protect their kids from Covid. Just more fake news from a dimwit author trying to push a dangerous agenda.