Connect with us

COVID-19

There are no licensed COVID shots for kids under 12 – but CDC wants babies to get 3 Pfizer shots by 9 months

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Ray L. Flores II, Esq. and Suzanne Burdick Ph.D., The Defender

“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”

Nine-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC’s updated guidance, issued August 30, states that children – as young as 6 months old – should get either two doses of the 2024-2025 Moderna vaccine or three doses of the 2024-2025 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

If getting the new Pfizer shot, the baby is supposed to receive the first dose at 6 months, the second dose three weeks later and the third dose at least eight weeks after the second dose – meaning, that by 9 months old, babies are supposed to have received three Pfizer shots.

If getting the latest Moderna shot, the CDC recommends babies get the first dose at age 6 months and the second dose a month later.

The latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 are unlicensed in the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted only emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccines.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “The earlier COVID shots have been proven unsafe and ineffective. Now we’re asked to believe that newer versions are miraculously safe and effective?”

“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”

Of those, 187 reports were for children and teens under 18. Nearly 13,000 reports listed the age as “unknown.”

VAERS analyst and expert Albert Benavides recently told The Defender he believes VAERS is “throttling” and underreporting deaths of all ages following COVID-19 vaccination.

Meanwhile, the CDC continues to tell the public that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective.”

CDC ‘absolutely misleading’ public on safety of EUA vaccines

Holland said the CDC is “absolutely misleading” the public by asserting that COVID-19 EUA vaccines are safe and effective because EUA vaccines are not held to the same safety or efficacy standards as licensed vaccines.

“By law,” she explained, “EUA products ‘may be effective,’ and they have not undergone the safety testing required to permit licensing.”

“This is one more horrific example of the CDC putting profits before people and acting as an unethical arm of Big Pharma’s marketing operation,” Holland added.

CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker agreed. “It is criminal that these untested vaccines are being recommended to infants and children, especially given the fraudulent tactics to market them to an unsuspecting public,” Hooker told The Defender.

There’s no licensed COVID vaccine for kids under 12

There are still no licensed COVID-19 vaccines available for children under 12, Hooker said – so all COVID-19 vaccines given to young kids are EUA products.

The FDA’s website on EUA for medical products states that EUA vaccines only have to meet the standard of “may be effective” as long as if, “based on the totality of the scientific evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective for the specified use.”

“The ‘may be effective’ standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the ‘effectiveness’ standard that FDA uses for product approvals,” the website states.

Before a vaccine can be fully licensed, the vaccine maker typically is required to conduct numerous clinical trials to demonstrate that the product is safe. However, the safety requirements for EUA are more flexible.

According to the FDA:

The amount and type(s) of safety information that FDA recommends be submitted as part of a request for an EUA will differ depending upon a number of factors, including whether the product is approved for another indication and, in the case of an unapproved product, the product’s stage of development.

Despite this, the first statement on the CDC’s “6 Things to Know about COVID-19 Vaccination for Children” says, “COVID-19 vaccination for children is safe.”

Risks outweigh benefits for kids

Hooker said the CDC’s actions are especially problematic as, historically, the meaning of “safe” has been interpreted by regulatory authorities as meaning that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks.

“With the risk to children of dying from a COVID-19 infection being statistically zero, it is unclear if there is any benefit,” he said.

Meanwhile, the CDC still claims that “while adverse reactions are rare, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known risks of COVID-19 and possible severe complications.”

Pfizer fact sheet more forthcoming about risks

For licensed vaccines, the CDC typically provides an official vaccine information statement (VIS) that describes the vaccine’s risks and potential benefits.

According to the CDC website, “Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent, or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines.”

However, for EUA COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC directs people to “fact sheets” – produced by the vaccine manufacturer, not the CDC, and authorized by the FDA – which detail the product’s risks and benefits.

There is no federal law requiring healthcare providers to share these fact sheets with patients, or parents of minors, before a COVID-19 vaccination.

“Pfizer’s own ‘fact sheet’ for its latest COVID-19 vaccine appears to give a more accurate picture [of the vaccine’s risks] than the CDC’s own websites,” Hooker said. “Shouldn’t the CDC be more a watchdog than Pfizer?”

For example, Pfizer’s fact sheet states, “A product authorized for emergency use has not undergone the same type of review by FDA as an FDA-approved product.”

The Pfizer fact sheet also acknowledges that its vaccine “may not protect everyone” and that reported side effects associated with the Pfizer vaccines include myocarditis and pericarditis.

Hooker pointed out that research has shown that vaccine-induced myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart, can be fatal.

He urged parents to “read between the lines” when assessing the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for babies and children.

“Most of all,” he added, “use common sense to decide if the CDC’s and the FDA’s logic is sound.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi expresses optimism after day in court appealing to overturn ban on his medical license

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The outspoken critic of COVID-19 shots said the judge appeared interested in learning more about the underlying cause of accusations made against him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Canadian medical freedom fighter Dr. Mark Trozzi passionately appealed his legal case before a court on Tuesday with the help of his lawyer. The outcome will determine whether he regains his right to practice medicine again after it was taken away because he spoke out against COVID shots.

Trozzi told LifeSiteNews he is “optimistic” about the outcome, noting that the judge seemed interested to find the underlying cause of accusations made against him by his medical regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

“I think the judge was pretty curious to dig into the science files which they (CPSO) ignored and see why I accused them of these things. They are counting on the judge to just think I am nuts and punish me for strong words,” Trozzi told LifeSiteNews after his hearing.

During the hearing, the CPSO had its lawyers go over their reasons for stripping Trozzi of his medical license earlier in the year.

His appeal case was heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC). The banned doctor is hopeful he will be successful in having a decision overturned by the CPSO, which stripped him of his medical license earlier this year because he spoke out against COVID jabs and mandates.

According to Trozzi, who has 25 years of experience working in emergency rooms, the CPSO’s court “strategy was trying to make me sound crazy,” but he does not “think it will work.”

“I am optimistic that these judges are going to do their part to start restoring some sort of worthwhile future for their grandkids and ours,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Trozzi’s case, should it be successful, attorney Michael Alexander said it would have far-reaching legal implications that directly impact Canadians’ freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

On January 25, the CPSO’s Discipline Tribunal, led by registrar Dr. Nancy Whitmore, stripped Trozzi of his license because he exposed the truth of the COVID ‘pandemic’ and its vaccines.

“In essence the CPSO has just abused their authority and violated doctors, running their tribunal as a kangaroo court and torture chamber. Their science was minuscule, and they never even refuted the volumes of scientific evidence which we placed before them,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“We have them in the appeal court now to rope them in from their extreme abuse of power, for starters.

During the hearing, the CPSO, as noted by Trozzi, talked about its accusations against him, regarding COVID jabs as well as PCR tests.

“The CPSO talked about strong accusations I have made against them and others, for things such as experimental genetic injections not ‘safe and effective vaccines,’ no real pandemic, PCR scam, obstructed treatment, the criminality of the college,” he said.

“They climaxed these portions with quoting my most stern moments that are founded on those true accusations, things like ‘they should be prosecuted, imprisoned, lawfully hung.’”

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVD: Mary O’ConnorRochangé KilianCeleste Jean ThirlwellPatrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Hearing panel ‘fair,’ Trozzi’s lawyer says

During the court hearing, Alexander made some exceptionally good arguments to support Trozzi’s claims that he was unfairly targeted by the CPSO in “biased” proceedings.

In speaking to LifeSiteNews, Alexander said in his view he felt that the hearing panel “was fair,” adding that he and Trozzi “had a good day.”

“I mean in the sense that I got out the core arguments that we needed to make to succeed in this,” he said.

“I don’t feel that the lawyers for the college really grappled with our arguments. They just repeated their own arguments. But I cannot say at the end of the day how the court will deal with that, but that’s my observation of it.”

Alexander told LifeSiteNews that as he has said before, the CPSO proceedings against Trozzi were “biased.”

“If my arguments are accepted about the fundamental errors, relating to the evidence that were made by the tribunal. If those are accepted it really impugns the entire decision and I would hope leads to an assumption that the proceeding was biased,” he said.

Alexander noted that once there is “evidence of bias,” the decision, in this case, the CPSO against Trozzi “must be overturned.”

“The proceeding certainly was biased, and I have argued that” he said.

Alexander noted how he had hoped for a full-day hearing, but he had to make do with a half-day hearing because the court is slammed with various cases.

A ruling in favor of Trozzi would overturn his medical license ban, but Alexander noted that a decision is not likely until the new year. LifeSiteNews will report on the judge’s ruling on today’s court hearing once that decision has been made public.

The hearing was open to the public, but the live stream suffered from outages for some, and others could not even log in, in after the capacity limit of the stream was reached.

In 2020 during the COVID crisis, Trozzi became concerned after the mainstream narrative regarding the virus and various public health emergencies were severely skewed.

He observed that his hospital’s ER was mostly empty despite claims they were overflowing.

Trozzi came under the CPSO spotlight for promoting alternative COVID treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation for speaking out, he was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 injections as well as masking requirements and testing, in 2021.

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that Dr. Robert Malone spoke out last year against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Dr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts

Published on

Dr. Mark Trozzi

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Tuesday, outspoken COVID science critic Dr. Mark Trozzi will appeal a decision to take away his medical license. Due to a new legal standard, a successful outcome may positively impact Canada ‘in all domains of government regulation.’

Medical freedom champion Dr. Mark Trozzi will present his legal case on Tuesday when he appeals the stripping of his medical license in January by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The case will be heard by the Ontario Divisional Court (ODC) and, according to attorney Michael Alexander, a successful result would have far-reaching legal implications impacting freedom of expression rights across “all domains of government regulation,” including all health colleges.

Appearing in a late September interview with Canadian politician Derek Sloan, Alexander explained the history of the case leading up to the revoking of Trozzi’s license on January 25. In their view, “the college was primarily concerned … that Mark had been making statements about COVID-19 science and public policy that amounted to ‘misinformation’ and he was misleading the public and in doing so causing harm.”

It was also relevant that Trozzi was not even in practice at this time but had taken a sabbatical to study these issues more carefully and start a daily newsletter regarding his research.

The concern of CPSO “was the substance of his views,” the attorney assessed, “so they wanted to censor him in some way” and “eventually took him to a discipline hearing where he was found to be unprofessional, incompetent, and in violation of the standard of practice in the profession, primarily because he just presented an alternative point of view.”

READ: Dr. Trozzi stripped of medical license over COVID stance, plans to appeal

Ironically, Trozzi was not able to be present for the interview himself because he was traveling in Japan, with an invitation to speak before its parliament. He had already addressed the Romanian parliament on issues related to the COVID-19 response.

While the highly regarded former emergency room specialist “is a persona non grata in Ontario,” Dr. Trozzi’s attorney observed, “he’s in high demand around the world as someone who is providing important insights into the whole COVID era, COVID science, COVID public policy, and his criticisms are taken very seriously.”

Trozzi case could impact ‘the country in all domains of government regulation’

For more than three decades, the Ontario Divisional Court has been legally directed to judge such cases only according to a low-threshold standard called “reasonableness” that Alexander describes as the court basically deferring to the judgment of such regulatory tribunals as CPSO with regard to facts, the law, and “particularly on the interpretation of the law that the tribunal adopts.”

What makes this case different is that since Trozzi has a “statute-based right to appeal” and thus a 2019 Supreme Court decision now requires the ODC to adopt a higher standard, referred to as “correctness,” in examining the CPSO decision.

Therefore, according to this new standard, “you must get all findings of fact correct, you must get every interpretation of your statute correct, you must interpret all case law correctly,” Alexander explained.

“So, the CPSO has never had to face this before, and this (case) is the first major fundamental challenge to a regulatory body on this standard of correctness in Ontario,” he continued. Thus, this case is “extremely important. If we were to win, it would affect the whole regulatory framework of the province in a positive way.”

“So these same judges, who have been cutting a lot of slack to the College of Physicians in particular, are now going to be facing similar issues that they have faced before but on this new standard of correctness,” the attorney said.  “So they are going to have to adopt a completely different mindset in assessing the case.”

Therefore, “I guess you could say (this is) an existential moment for the judiciary in Ontario,” Alexander proposed.  “I mean will the Divisional Court step up to the plate and fully apply the standard of correctness and have the courage to do it?”

According to Alexander, a successful outcome in this case “would have a ripple effect not just in Ontario for the 22 health colleges here but for the health colleges all across the country,” forcing them to reconsider their policies in this regard.

And given the case regards the fundamental freedom of expression, a successful outcome on these arguments “would have an impact across the country in all domains of government regulation.”

“So this is not a case that’s just about Mark,” the attorney clarified. “We are trying to change the way this country is governed, and the college’s case has given us that opportunity.”

In 2020 during the “pandemic,” Trozzi, an ER veteran of 25 years, noticed that the mainstream narrative surrounding the public health “emergency” was deeply flawed. While media reported overflowing emergency rooms, Trozzi’s hospital remained relatively empty. This inspired him to research the science facts of COVID.

In the interest of protecting not only his own patients but people everywhere, Dr. Trozzi promoted alternative COVID-19 treatments and publicly explained why the COVID shot is “not a vaccine.”

In retaliation, Dr. Trozzi was barred from issuing medical exemptions for COVID-19 shots, masking requirements and testing in 2021. He was not alone: Ontario’s Dr. Rochagne Kilian was also similarly barred.

At the time, CPSO said the interim orders were given in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, which allow restrictions on a member’s license if a regulator believes a certain practice “exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury.”

The CPSO has cracked down on numerous physicians who failed to comply with standard protocol during the COVID outbreak. It has done this so assiduously that last year Dr. Robert Malone spoke out against what he described as the “re-education” of dissident Canadian doctors.

READ: Dr. Robert Malone leads thousands of scientists in calling for a total end to ‘orchestrated’ COVID crisis

The CPSO has thus far initiated legal action against Trozzi and at least five other doctors who are committed to their Hippocratic Oath responsibilities related to COVID: Mary O’ConnorKilianCeleste Jean Thirlwell, Patrick Phillips, and Crystal Luchkiw.

Alexander also made clear that while the CPSO has the typical governmental “blank check” of “unlimited resources,” including “around 10 lawyers on staff” and “access to outside council,” he is in need to hire “clerks to do special kinds of filing” and is seeking free-will donations.

Having donated “hundreds of thousands of dollars of billable time” into this case, Alexander has no regrets, stating that “it’s too important to the country not to litigate and we are the ones who pioneered this approach, and so it’s us or nobody.”

To assist Dr. Trozzi in winning his precedent-setting case, please donate here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X