A Slant On Why They are, and Always Have Been, After The Children

[Gwin Ru]

...

... Victoria... may the universe bless the ground you tread your socks on and thank you for bringing this thread back on topic

This is the latest iteration of some MO that's very old, the most well known reported similar event goes back to the predicted arrival of (a) wayshower(s) and there was that guy by the name of Herod who decided to slaughter about every kid of or below a certain age... apparently that didn't work and since that wayshower "recruited" so-called "disciples", I don't think he came down on Earth all alone but along with a whole dedicated crew.

Before that there was that custom of sacrificing the "First Born" which was slated to be the "Born Rights" as described by Steve Richards.

And, so, a whole generation was "sacrificed" and there we, again, go.

[Victoria]

You're welcome, Gwin Ru! and ((thank you)) may the ground you tread upon be blessed for you, too, for all you do and share

This is a very important topic that Avalonians, out of everyone, should be able to see more clearly than most. The concept of "born rights" applies to everything: secret societies, those in power, abductions, parasitic attachments, history, humanity's role, the future...

The cycle has been going on for so very long and is expansive in its reach of causing trauma to earth and its inhabitants. It's mind boggling to me that we keep allowing the same to repeat over and over.

Seems after this many iterations, humanity has been distanced so far from source and internal knowing, that we cannot see up from down in what is happening and as the links you shared point out, people have largely suppressed their genetic memories, so contribute to the repetition unwittingly.

Thank you for drawing attention to all of this. As Steve Richards said in the transcripts referenced above, "How can anything ever change unless it’s acknowledged?"

[Gwin Ru]

...

... this guy spells it out:

Ukraine Channel 24 calls for the extermination of all Russians, including women and children

Voltaire Network | 17 March 2022

Deutsch Español français italiano Português

On 13 March 2022, Ukrainian television channel 24 (24 Канал) - controlled by the TRK Group of Kateryna Kit-Sadova (wife of the Lviv mayor) - broadcast a show hosted by Fakhrudin Sharafmal.

This is what he said on the air:

“I know that as a journalist, I have to be objective, I have to be balanced, in order to report information to you with a cold heart, but to tell you the truth, it’s very hard to hold on now, especially at a time like this, and since we are called Nazis, fascists, and so on in Russia – I will allow myself to quote Adolf Eichmann, who said that in order to destroy a nation, you must destroy, first of all, children. Because if you kill the parents, the children will grow up and take revenge. However, by killing children, they will never grow up, and the nation will disappear.

"The Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot kill Russian children because the rules of war forbid it, and it is prohibited by various conventions, including the Geneva Convention. But I am not from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And when I get the chance to take down Russians, I will definitely do it.

"Since you call me a Nazi, I adhere to the doctrine of Adolf Eichmann, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that you and your children never live on this earth so that you can feel what it is like when innocent civilians die and bear all the pain and suffering. You say you didn’t start this war, you don’t want it, it’s Putin’s fault. But we haven’t started it either. Now you must understand, it is no longer about peace, it is about the victory of the Ukrainian people.

"We need victory. And if we have to slaughter your families to do it – I’ll be one of the first to do it. Glory to the nation! And hope that there will never be such a nation as Russia and the Russians on this earth again because they are just scum who are destroying this land. If the Ukrainians have the opportunity, which they are basically doing right now, to destroy, slaughter, kill, and strangle the Muscovites. And I hope that everyone contributes and whacks at least one Moskal.”

The video of this rant is being played non-stop on Russian television as proof of the true nature of Ukrainian “nationalists”.

The Russian diplomatic mission brought the matter before the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation, the international organization emanating from the Helsinki agreements.

[onawah]

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 03, 2022
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1451214218

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule
Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information
Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization: There must be an emergency; a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective; the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product; and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines).
Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained
According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable
Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed.
It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not yet available in the United States.
They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield


In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Npxld717Uxd2/

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Npxld717Uxd2/


Mayer, board president of Children's Health Defense — California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)

Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.

In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.

“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn't know if I was ever going to get better.

I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.

It's literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.

I had encephalitis and encephalopathy ... digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.

I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”

The COVID Jab Tragedy
While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability
The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what's really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of ... These are the things they're guarding with their lives.

First of all, they need to guard the emergency ... so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They're also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you're injured by an EUA vaccine, you can't sue the manufacturer, you can't sue the person who gave it to you, you can't sue the institution where you got the shot.

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they'll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you're vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You'll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you're going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that's going to get you better if you're vaccine injured is natural treatments ...

That's the kind of treatment you're going to need, and that's not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it's a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they're paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.

If you can't work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don't know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation ... they don't pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.

That's been said to me a bunch of times by people who've been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA
In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it's a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well ... So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it's basically the same as an outright mandate.

It's illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that's medical segregation.

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn't either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet ... that's also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it's not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn't make it legal. It's all illegal ...

Now, they know full well that it's illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it's illegal. But what they're counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it's worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling
The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you're a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children's schedule. ~ Alix Mayer
To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you're a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children's schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’
In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That's not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it's just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is 'purely informational.'

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it's purely informational. You cannot act on it. That's what the DOJ says. Again, it's not adjudicated, so it doesn't mean anything. It's an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA
There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn't just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks.

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market ... by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval
With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn't have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I'm doing this presentation because I'm going to explain what’s going on with that.

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that's the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.

There's all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It's all the same answer. No, no, no, no.

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it's ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it's ‘legally distinct.’

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it's not licensed to be given to anyone, and it's not available in the United States. It's available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they're really scared of liability.

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it's approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.

Here's what they said; ‘We're deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That's a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children's vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That's why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed
This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it's also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They're not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn't have full approval and it's not on the market.

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military's COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we're still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they're not interchangeable.

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it's an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn't have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it's an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children's recommended schedule. That's how we know it's not fully approved and on the market.

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it's emergency use authorization. It doesn't say it's fully approved, because it's not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who've received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That's what's going on here.

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it's happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there's a problem with their vaccine and they don't declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it's not that big of a deal, but it's a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID ...

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they're going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate ...

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn't calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don't prevent transmission. They don't prevent cases. They don't prevent hospitalization or death.”

How You Can Help
Children’s Health Defense has sued the FDA overthe approval of Comirnaty, alleging that this is a “bait and switch” to convince people they are receiving a licensed vaccine, when in fact they are getting an EUA vaccine that cannot be lawfully mandated. Unfortunately, these kinds of legal cases can take a long time, and children are being needlessly harmed while we wait for legal clarification.

They also have a couple dozen other legal cases underway. If you want to help, please sign up to become a member on childrenshealthdefense.org. It’s only $10 for a lifetime membership.

“That really helps us with standing in our legal cases, because the more people we represent, the stronger our cases are,” Mayer says. If you're in California, you can join the local chapter at ca.childrenshealthdefense.org. You can also help by purchasing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.”

This book is an absolute must-read and you know people are enjoying it as it has been No. 1 on Amazon for the last month, which is very unusual for a book. It will likely be one of the top best sellers of the entire year. So, get your copy before Sen. Elizabeth Warren convinces Amazon to ban it!"

- Sources and References
1 Reuters October 19, 2021
2 Biotech Law December 22, 2003
3 Maryannedemasi.com November 11, 2021
4 The BMJ Opinion
5 FDA BioNTech BLA Approval
6 USA Today December 22, 2021

[Gwin Ru]

This is God's Work Being Done Right Here Right Now: The Aramis Collective 50:56

Apr 7, 2022

The Mark Attwood Show Adventures in a Cosmic Suit

My great pleasure to be joined today by Sherri Divband and Celine O'Donovan to discuss this incredible 5D project...

Aramis Creative Learning: https://aramiscreativelearning.com/

The Aramis Collective: https://thearamiscollective.com/

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=95gaRtweCqo

Get on my email list to avoid censorship and for awesome updates: https://tmas.tv/marksemaillist

All my show stuff here: https://theMarkAttwoodShow.com

[onawah]

ACT NOW: Tell the FDA to say NO to Pfizer jabs for babies and toddlers
From: Stand for Health Freedom advocates@standforhealthfreedom.com
6/4/22
https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/no-jabs/

( I HOPE YOU GIVE THEM AN EARFUL! I JUST DID. )

"Our Stand: At-A-Glance
FDA’s VRBPAC will meet June 15, 2022, to discuss expanding the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID jab to children from 6 months up to 5 years old.
This meeting was first scheduled for February, but after a huge public outcry the meeting was postponed to collect more data. As of June 3, 2022, this meeting has not yet been announced in the Federal Register (as the other June 2022 meetings have been) but comments are open.
This authorization would make approximately 18 million more children eligible for an experimental jab.
In December 2021, Pfizer announced the two-dose series wasn’t successful and did not provide immunity in 2–5-year-olds. Our youngest children will have to get more.
This age group is at minimal risk for catching or passing on COVID. If a child gets infected, they are far less likely to have serious outcomes.
According to data published by the CDC, 99.99815% of children who contract COVID-19 survive.
Most COVID cases are spread from adult to children and our children are not a threat to the older population.
This is not an FDA-approved shot; this would be an expansion of the experimental Emergency Use Authorization.
There are no long-term safety studies for this age group, or any age group, for the mRNA COVID shots because the placebo group was “unblinded” and allowed to get the jab.
If the FDA expands the Pfizer EUA to children as young as 5, systems are already in place to distribute the jab to our most vulnerable and schools will increase COVID jab mandates for our children. The ultimate goal for the White House is to expand the vaccine authorization to all children and get the jab on the ACIP Vaccine Schedule.
You can help stop this. You must tell our government what you want for your children. You can make a public comment that will go on record for the FDA to consider as it decides on Emergency Use Authorization for COVID vaccines for children ages 6 months – 4 years.
Comments received on or before June 7, 2022, will be provided to the committee. However, if you miss that window, you can still comment! The docket will remain open until the meeting, become part of our nation’s public record, and be taken into consideration by the FDA.

Sample Topics for Comments:

Ask the FDA to do their job and require adequate data.
Tell the FDA they must pay attention to the safety signal from VAERS and make decisions based on extreme caution.
The FDA must make decisions independent of what parents want for their children.
Ask questions that the FDA should be asking
Have they examined new evidence that the spike protein circulates through the body?
Do they know the rates of transmission from children to adults?
What is the effect of the COVID shot on puberty and fertility?
Have you been reading the documents Pfizer is releasing under court order?
Where is your evaluation of natural immunity in this decision?

Your home address information is required from the legislative offices to ensure you are reaching out to your designated representatives. Your email and your phone number are used to establish connection with your designated representatives. Messages from non-constituents don't have the same impact on a legislator as messages from verified constituents, who can vote for that officeholder. We do not share your name and contact information with any third parties unless legally required to do so.


Have a question or need help?
VIEW OUR FAQS
Our Stand: The Full Story
The FDA is responsible for evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs and biologics that come to market. American parents rely on that. But many vaccines and drugs have been recalled because they hurt people they were supposed to help, even after they were recommended by VRBPAC and put through years of evaluation before approval by the FDA. The COVID shots went through research and development in an astounding four months, a process that generally takes up to a decade for vaccines. The first trial in adults began April 23, 2020. Trials in children as young as 6 months started March 24, 2021. As of June 15, 2022, when VRBPAC will meet to evaluate the data from Pfizer and make a recommendation to the FDA on whether the EUA for Pfizer’s COVID shots should be extended to children as young as 6 months, there will only be just over two years of data for adults and one year of data for children. In this short amount of time, there is already significant data about adverse events that has not yet been properly analyzed from VAERS, which is a huge safety signal that these shots are not safe.

Already, hundreds of adverse events have been reported to VAERS for children ages 0-5 after COVID shots given to breastfeeding mothers. One 6-month-old infant died within 24 hours of breast milk exposure following his mother’s second shot (VAERS ID 1166062-1). Another infant suffered a seven-minute seizure after breastfeeding and reports a permanent disability – no medical history or other complicating factors were found (VAERS ID 1415059-1). Many other breastfed infants suffered anaphylaxis, blisters, rashes, fevers, racing heartbeats, and more, requiring hospitalizations, emergency care, and visits to their doctors.

There have been 1,492 reports to VAERS after COVID shots in 3–5-year-olds as of June 2, 2022. One 5-year-old died (VAERS ID 1890705-1), four report life threatening events, five report permanent disability. Most of the adverse events reported were from a Pfizer shot, the very manufacturer that has submitted an application to extend their EUA experimental shots into children as young as 6 months old.

Do we know that the spike protein stays in the place it is injected, or does it travel through the body and end up being found in places like sex organs? If the spike protein travels, would it be more likely to end up in the brain and CNS of infants and toddlers since the blood brain barrier is not as developed? One Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher, Bryam Bridle, believes the spike protein does not stay at the vaccination site, but instead can travel through the body in the blood.[i] Do the unique differences in the immune systems of infants change the analysis for immediate safety and long-term safety – clearly it has already been demonstrated that the efficacy of the jab is not the same, and it is logical to assume the safety profile would be different in undeveloped immune systems, as well. Babies have different ratios of fat to muscle, as well as different metabolisms – are these things taken into consideration in the trials?

Should we be vaccinating children to (possibly) protect adults? Dr. James Hildebrant, who sits on VRBPAC, does not think so, but he voted yes for the shots in children as young as 5. Is there enough evidence that children transmit the COVID virus to adults? Does it make sense that our smallest humans would get doses of an experimental drug that has only a couple years’ worth of post-market safety data in other age groups?

Despite all these questions, the White House has been waiting for this authorization since January. Jeffrey Zientz, former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, told the press the administration was ready to “hit the ground running” to vaccinate infants and toddlers as soon as they get the authorization.

We need to remind VRBPAC and the FDA their job isn’t to approve something because parents are scared. Their job isn’t to move a political agenda down the line or make good on the White House’s advance purchase contracts. Their job is to keep American families safe and only allow effective products to market.

The FDA must take into consideration public comment as well as the advice of VRBPAC when making decisions about novel biologics that enter the U.S. market. Commenting in the Federal Register (the publication for all federal agency actions) is a simple yet powerful way to make your voice heard.

Click the button to comment!
https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/no-jabs/ "

[onawah]

FDA Advisors Unanimously Endorse Pfizer, Moderna COVID Shots for Infants and Young Kids, Ignore Pleas to ‘First Do No Harm'
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...-e851d64328b40
6/15/22

(Many hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"The administration today voted 21-0 to recommend Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for infants and young children.

'All the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals,' said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), after advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today voted 21-0 to recommend Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for infants and young children.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory panel today unanimously voted 21-0 to recommend Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for infants and young children, stating the totality of the evidence available shows the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks of use.

Pfizer’s three-dose vaccine would cover children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s two-dose vaccine covers children 6 months to 6 years old.

States have already ordered millions of doses made available prior to FDA authorization by the Biden administration.

Depending on whether the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accept the recommendations of their advisory panels, White House officials have said the administration of vaccines for these age groups could start as early as June 21.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ignored pleas from experts, the vaccine injured and a congressman representing 17 other lawmakers to halt authorization until questions about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for the nation’s youngest children could be properly addressed.

Many of the committee members, including pediatrician Dr. Ofer Levy, said the decision to authorize the shots was about providing a choice to parents who wanted access to COVID-19 vaccines, despite concerns by public commenters the panel was not adhering to the requirements for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and that authorization would eventually lead to mandates — as it did with adult vaccines.

“I know that the death rate from COVID and young children may not be extremely high,” said Dr. Jay Portnoy, professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “It’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick.”

Portnoy said there are “so many parents who are absolutely desperate to get this vaccine” and he thinks the committee “owes it to them to give them the choice.”

Several committee members, including Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, raised concerns about Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for kids and the minimal protection it provided after two doses.

Offit said he still supports authorizing a three-dose regimen for the youngest age groups but expects four doses may be needed.

Moderna’s vaccine for infants and toddlers consists of two 25-microgram shots, while Pfizer’s vaccine is a triple-dose regimen of 3-microgram shots each.

Combining all ages together, Pfizer said its three-dose regimen for children 6 months to 5 years old was 80% effective at preventing illness from the Omicron variant based on preliminary data from its clinical trial.

The 80% number was calculated 30 days after the third dose. As noted by committee members, the efficacy number is likely to go down after 30 days and post-approval monitoring was suggested.

Moderna said its two-shot vaccine was about 51% effective against infection from Omicron in children under 2, and about 37% among kids 2 to 5 years old, citing different efficacy numbers than what was reported by the company in March.

In a March 23 press release, Moderna said its vaccine in the 6-month to 2-year age group was only 43.7% effective. In the older age group, the company said its vaccine was 37.5% effective.

A top official at Moderna has already said a booster will be necessary.

All previously authorized COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for all age groups were required to meet the FDA’s 50% requirement prior to obtaining EUA.

But Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, last month told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis the agency would not withhold authorization of a pediatric vaccine if it fails to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold for blocking symptomatic infections.

Congressman calls out FDA for failing to answer lawmakers’ questions

During the public hearing portion of the meeting, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said there are many unanswered questions regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, especially for babies and young children.

“I’m deeply concerned that the push to vaccinate these children is nothing more than a dystopian experiment with unknown consequences,” Gohmert told the committee. “Some of us have outlined these questions in a letter to VRBPAC but have not received any answers, and I pose some of them here.”

Gohmert said:

“Number 1, why has the FDA refused to release the hundreds of thousands of pages of data from preapproval manufacturer studies, post-approval adverse events data and other post-approval manufacturer data?

“Number 2, what is the cardiac risk factor in administrating these COVID vaccines to children?

“Number 3, world-renowned immunologists have raised concerns about potential antibody-dependent enhancement, or ADE, resulting from COVID vaccines, and since ADE was a problem in prior unrelated respiratory vaccine trials, we need to know what studies, if any, the FDA has that it’s used regarding ADE from COVID vaccines in children 5 and under or any age group. Can the FDA affirm there’s no risk of ADE for vaccinated children?

“Number 4, if widely approved among children 5 and under, how many lives, if any, does FDA estimate will be saved next year? Given the injuries reported in the FDA’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] system, how will FDA evaluate serious vaccine injuries versus serious COVID outcomes?

“Number 5, is it possible the proposed COVID vaccines in young children could create increased risk in future novel COVID variants?

“Number 6, why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children? This change significantly lowers the expected benefits from any COVID vaccination for young children and it’s of particular concern given that over 70% of that age cohort already is seropositive.”

Gohmert said these questions and 13 other questions posed by lawmakers are critical and deserve answers from the FDA and VRBPAC prior to any EUA with the “accompanied protection for liability for all harm done.”

Gohmert added:

“In conclusion, some of us have grave concerns that in balancing the risk to rewards here, all the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals, leaving me to wonder if Republicans get a majority I may need to have a bill […] to allow civil and criminal liability to vaccine providers and accessories despite an EUA which would force more sensitivity towards vaccine harm to our young children.”

Vaccine-injured speak out

During the public hearing session of the meeting, numerous individuals discussed the injuries they experienced after being vaccinated with Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, pleading with officials to look at what’s occurring with the adult population before they authorize vaccines for kids.

Jasmine King, a 38-year-old lawyer whose law license lapsed after she was injured by her first dose of Moderna, said she has been to more than 50 doctor appointments and has spent more than $20,000 in co-pays, treatments and supplements to heal from her injuries.

King said she is being monitored for Lou Gherig’s disease and developed sensory nerve symptoms, motor nerve problems, heart palpitations and autonomic nervous system issues after being vaccinated.

King asked the advisory panel to look at what’s happening in the adult population to see what could happen in the pediatric population — if authorization is given — and consider vaccine injuries when discussing the risks of COVID-19.

Kathlyn Hinesley pointed out that the FDA is legally prohibited from approving any biological product for emergency use unless there’s an emergency that poses a risk of death to the target group, the product is effective in preventing the disease, it is safe and the benefits must outweigh the risk.

Hinesley stated:

“With regard to the first point, children without comorbidities who acquire COVID-19 have a 99.98% survival rate. There is no emergency. Moving forward to effectiveness, a study […] which includes data analysis of 145 countries found that COVID-19 vaccines were in fact associated with a 38% increase in COVID cases and a 31% increase in deaths. Could these vaccines be negatively affecting immunity?

“The number of severe adverse events affecting children ages 5 to 17 reported to VAERS as of June 3 was 8,811, including 114 deaths and 1,346 cases of myocarditis — a condition that can be fatal.

“We can assume if these vaccines are authorized, some babies will die. The benefits of these vaccines are questionable and the risks are clear.”

Hinesley told the committee if they authorized injections for this age group, they would be participating in the killing of children.

Sam Dodson, an intellectual engineer, called out the FDA for doing “nothing” with the “massive safety signals,” colluding with pharmaceutical companies to suppress trial data for 75 years, ignoring fraudulent data, ignoring adverse events like myocarditis and prion diseases and ignoring issues with infertility.

Dodson also expressed concerns about biodistribution data he accused the agency of “doing nothing” about.

“You turned a once-respected agency into a corrupt vessel for the very corporations you swore to protect the American public from,” Dodson said. “If you have one shred of humanity left you will call for an immediate halt to the shots […].”

Before his time ended, Dodson said the panel might want to figure out how they’re “going to diagnose myocarditis in very young babies who can’t talk.”

Dr. Katarina Lindley, a physician and member of the steering committee for the World Council for Health, said data from the CDC from February showed 74.2% of children have already acquired COVID-19 and expressed concerns over Moderna and Pfizer’s data presented to the FDA.

Lindley stated:

“Over 150 studies show that natural immunity is superior. The infection fatality rate under 5 years of age is 0.1 in 100,000 or 1 in a million. The risk of the shot in the already immune is higher than 1 in a million.

“Both Pfizer and Moderna expressly eliminated those that were naturally immune from their study. They did this to avoid the hyperimmune response and possibly death.

“Vaccinating the already immune puts them at risk of having a hyperimmune response. This means you’ll be voting for some children to have a severe adverse reaction and possibly death if you vaccinate the immune. This is bad medicine.”

FDA advisors fail to discuss vaccine imprinting among infants and toddlers

Immune imprinting was not on the agenda at the VRBPAC meeting, nor was it discussed among experts.

However, the authors of an op-ed published this week in STAT, a pharmaceutical industry publication, raised the issue as justification for calling on the FDA panel to reject Pfizer and Moderna’s EUA for young children.

Steve Brozak, founder of the WBB Research Institute, and Dr. Richard Marfuggi, surgeon and medical director of the WBB Research Institute and member of the New Jersey State Biomedical Ethics Committee, wrote:

“The vote on this vaccine for this vulnerable sector of the population is not inexorable. The availability of a therapy is not a justification for its use when benefits of such use are so poorly justified and no data on future consequences for this population to specifically include imprinting even exists.

“The VRBPAC should say ‘no’ to vaccinating infants and toddlers with the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. ‘First do no harm’ has never been a more important dictum.”

Immune imprinting, or original antigenic sin (OAS), results from exposure to proteins or other biological structures of viruses, like the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, that allow a virus to penetrate host cells and cause infection.

OAS refers to the preference of the immune system to recall existing memory cells — that recall the same pathogen for antibody production — rather than stimulating a new response when encountering a novel but closely related antigen.

According to Brozak and Marfuggi, imprinting can come directly from an acute infection acquired naturally or indirectly through vaccination.

“It can result in reduced — or enhanced — responses to future variants with unknown clinical consequences,” they wrote. “The former is beneficial, the latter is not.”

Immune system imprinting and the negative effects of imprinting are not new concepts. A team of researchers in a 2013 paper described how infants who survived the 1889 Russian pandemic were more likely to experience excess mortality as adults during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918.

Infants who survived the 1918 Spanish flu were more likely to experience excess mortality as adults during the Hong Kong flu of 1968 and infants exposed to the swine flu pandemic of 1957 were more likely to experience excess mortality as adults during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Mexico.

According to the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin by Dr. Thomas Francis, the initial priming of the immune system (initial exposure to the virus, either in the wild or via a vaccine) gets “fixed” for life.

If the initial priming of the immune system is sub-optimal and biased, then that sub-optimal initial priming can effectively derange and bias the immune response long-term, which would guide all future immunological responses, said Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, a global expert on COVID-19.

According to Brozak and Marfuggi, the immune systems of infants and toddlers — the latest targets of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and health agencies — are immature and developing.

They wrote:

“If an immature immune system is immunologically imprinted, either by acute infection from the currently circulating viral variant or by a COVID-19 vaccine based on the original, wild-type variant that is no longer in circulation, it may fail to develop appropriate defenses when confronted — even years later — by a Covid variant or another totally different pathogen.”

According to Alexander, “The COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S. only reduce symptoms, thus allowing the host to stay alive (an evolutionary future it did not have) while remaining capable of transmitting. Evidence shows vaccinated persons are indeed susceptible to infection, and as alarmingly, carry as high a viral load as the unvaccinated.”

In addition, vaccinated persons are likely to spread the virus to other members of their household, Alexander said.

“Imperfect, leaky and harmful COVID-19 vaccines could rob children of robust, durable and potent natural innate immunity that has always protected them and helps reduce the infectious pressure while contributing to population herd immunity.”

Some vaccines could drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens, and “Marek’s disease effect and vaccination may well be at play here with COVID vaccines — moderating symptoms while not stopping infection or transmission, thus posing a danger to the unvaccinated and vaccinated,” Alexander added.

As The Defender reported Tuesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, sent a letter to VRBPAC members last week warning that the organization is poised to take legal action should the EUAs be granted."

Also posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1503087