Child Experimentation
The CDC calls for more unlicensed injections
On November 2, 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] unanimously voted to recommend the Pfizer EUA COVID shot for children ages 5-11 years.
As has been documented, ACIP is rife with conflicts of interest and ties to the biopharmaceutical complex. Money, careers, status, influence.
While that initial vote to recommend an experimental and untested injectable product was blatantly unscientific, under the cover of ‘crisis’, it served another purpose: to ‘soften the ground’ for what would come.
On October 20, 2022, ACIP again unanimously voted to recommend the unlicensed EUA COVID shots for young children, green-lighting the injectable products to be added to The Schedule. This vote accepted either Pfizer or Moderna products for an even younger age group than before: infants, as young as 6 months old.
Prior to COVID, no Emergency Use Authorized product had ever been added to The Schedule before. This is a big deal, but both the public health agencies and their captured press brigade underplayed the importance.
In lockstep (the very same day), Pfizer announced a 400% price increase on their COVID jab. As with all of the shots on The Schedule, listing is a veritable guarantee for elephantine long-term profit.
In December 2022, the FDA expanded the Emergency Use Authorization1 for the COVID ‘booster’ to include children under 5 years old. The CDC followed a day later with its own expansion, lowering the target age to as young as 6 months.
Recall that the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to the infamous ‘bivalent boosters’ on the basis of a few studies in a handful of mice; specifically, 8 mice in the Pfizer trial and 10 mice in the Moderna trial.2
On April 18, 2023, the FDA would withdraw EUA status for the original shots in favor of the bivalent boosters. No jab3 in history has ever been rolled out to the public so quickly.
Fast forward to 2024.
On June 27, 2024, ACIP again unanimously voted to recommend ‘updated’ COVID shots for all persons, including children as young as 6 months old. This recommendation included products from Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax.
“An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) is a mechanism to facilitate the availability and use of medical countermeasures, including vaccines, during public health emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”
- FDA, “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained”
EUA products — All of them
To date, there are no licensed COVID jabs for children under 12 in the US.
The latest shots, like their predecessors, are EUA countermeasures4, approved through a process ostensibly to be used to enable deployment of unapproved products in the context of an emergency or bioterrorist attack.
Does such an emergency actually exist?
It cannot be over-emphasized: none of the COVID shots given to children have been FDA licensed for children under 12 years old. Not a one.
By definition, these shots are experimental and everyone injected is the subject of experimentation. Including infants and toddlers.
It is not an exaggeration at all, to call this what it is: child experimentation.
Performance of Deception
The FDA’s mission, as stated (emphasis added):
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
FDA is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.
FDA also plays a significant role in the Nation's counterterrorism capability. FDA fulfills this responsibility by ensuring the security of the food supply and by fostering development of medical products to respond to deliberate and naturally emerging public health threats.
And yet, the continuing use of the EUA process makes a complete mockery of traditional safety and efficacy testing, and a farce of the FDA’s mission.
EUA is being used as a hack, a work-around: a short-cut to market.
It is being used—illegally—to enable the production and distribution of dangerous (and deadly) experimental products, all the while casting a veil of ‘official’ legitimacy, which at least some of the public continues to take at face value.
The mission-phrase ‘science-based information’ is also belittling to the public. The language used implies that good rigorous science is actually being done, and the FDA is going spoon feed it to you. The phrasing might better be interpreted as ‘information posing as science’, because as has been observed, the FDA’s interest is not in having the public make informed choices, but seems rather, to enable the sale and distribution of medical products. It’s there, in their own words, ‘helping the public to use medical products…’
There is grim irony too, in the emphasis on tobacco, which figures prominently in the mission statement; because currently, pharmaceuticals kill and sicken far more people than smoking.
This amounts to a grim performance of deception, dressed in ‘official-ness’.
On a vast number of fronts (across the spectrum of government), we are living through an incremental and persistent normalization of illegality and corruption, predicated on distorted and misrepresented information, founded on blatant misuse of methods which claim to be ‘scientific’, but reads more as a shadow-puppet performance masquerading as science. Effectively, window dressing.
This runs deeper (and wider) than ‘agency capture’.
The ongoing rollout of these jabs are part and parcel of this incremental process.
As many have become painfully aware, the evidence of harm, disability, and death associated with these shots continues to pile up. All the while, public health agencies continue the performance: ignoring, obfuscating, obstructing, and denying evidence which continues to accumulate.
Some of the most documented harms relate to jab damage to the heart, in many cases fatal. And while grave, this is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. A wide range of serious conditions are now associated with these shots, including: stroke, blood clotting disorders, kidney and liver failure, fatigue, and neurological conditions such as Guillain-Barré, and demyelination diseases like multiple sclerosis.
Cancer
One of the challenges of cancer, is that it can take decades to be detected. But many are concerned this may no longer generally hold, as more and more rapid-onset and rapid-progression cancer cases are being observed.
Will cancer be an outcome of these child experiments?
A study out of Japan, published in April 20245 analyzed public national vital statistics data. These included monthly and annual Japanese deaths, cause of death, sex, and age. The authors compared age-adjusted mortality for different types of cancer from 2020-2022 with historical trends.
What Gibo et. al. found was an increase in age-adjusted cancer mortality following the mass injection campaign with the COVID-19 injectables. Five cancer types exceeded expected values: ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, oral/pharyngeal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Note the red bars in the graphic below.
This doesn’t demonstrate causation, obviously, but it points to a very concerning trend that may continue to play out into the coming years and decades. It points to a deadly possibility and a very serious gap in the kind of information the public needs to make intelligent decisions. The authors concluded:
Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. The significance of this possibility warrants further studies.
Within weeks, this paper was pilloried by none other than Reuters ‘Fact Check’. And a month later, the paper was retracted by the publisher, Cureus.
The takeaway here isn’t that there is no concern with the potential for these shots to induce cancer, it’s that studies like Gibo et. al. are being publicly persecuted, very much as a kind of sacrilege. This subject of study is decidedly ‘off-narrative’.
Three shots by 9 months
The Defender reports:
The CDC’s updated guidance, issued Aug. 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.
This is a very important point.
Unless parsed very carefully, the current 2024 Schedule is deceiving. For a newborn, (whose parents elect to follow The Schedule and all recommendations) the first two or three doses of COVID shot exposure would fall in the red rectangle highlight below, not the long yellow bar.
This early developmental exposure has not been adequately studied, but risks evident in adult populations do not bode well, especially in the context of young infants and toddlers.
The CDC’s dose description in the chart (“1 or more doses”) is also misleading, because as we have seen, the recommendations coming out of the CDC and ACIP indicates that new versions of the shots will continue to be rolled out on an approximately annual basis.
Indeed, judging by past recommendations: if one were to be fully ‘up to date’ at the moment, you would have accepted no less than 7 shots in less than 4 years. Some individuals may have taken 1-3 more, depending on the circumstances, for a staggering sum of 10 doses.
Initial series (2020-2021):
2 doses (Pfizer or Moderna)
First booster (late 2021):
1 dose
Second booster (2022):
1 dose
Bivalent booster (late 2022/early 2023):
1 dose
Updated vaccine for 2023-2024 season:
1 dose
Updated vaccine for 2024-2025 season:
1 dose
That’s a pattern of at least one (if not two) dose(s) per year.
For Pfizer, the recommended 3 shots for 9 month olds is an increase over the former 2 shot recommendation. For Moderna, 2 shots over the former recommendation of 1.
More and more shots for a danger that was never very serious or widespread for the overwhelming majority of young children.
The shots keep coming, like a juggernaut. One of the definitions of the word juggernaut is particularly on point:
“An institution that incites destructive devotion or to which people are carelessly sacrificed.”
We’re still living through an ‘emergency’, right?
Yes, it is an emergency, but not one driven by a disease.
Information wants to be free—and over 90% of the content here is accessible to anyone. But everything takes care and time. If you like what you see, and you’re willing and able, consider leaving a tip. Every little bit helps. Thank you!
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained
See infosheet on the bivalent booster, republished on this stack.
The COVID-19 injectable products are not ‘vaccines’ and using either term, ‘vaccine’ or ‘vaccinated’, in reference to these genetic pro-drugs is misleading and contributes to the ongoing misrepresentation of these products.
For a truncated, but related synopsis of how the EUA countermeasures status has been deceptively weaponized vis a vis injection mandates, see the first part of the post below.
Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (April 08, 2024) Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(4): e57860. doi:10.7759/cureus.57860