Health & Fitness

By Dr. Mercola

A simple sign on a grocery store shelf has gone viral, causing a storm of outrage among consumers who feel they've been misled by cereal maker Kellogg's claims about its Kashi cereals. A Rhode Island grocer posted a note on the shelf where Kashi was supposed to be, saying he'd learned it wasn't 100 percent natural after all, and therefore wasn't carrying it anymore.

It turns out the soy in Kashi cereals comes from genetically modified Roundup-ready soybeans, which have a gene inserted in them that allows the crop to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the weed killer.

USA Today reported that consumers felt duped into believing that Kashi was all-natural when it's not¹. Their complaints were initially brushed off by Kashi general Manager David DeSouza, who told USA Today that since the FDA doesn't regulate the term "natural," the cereal maker has done nothing wrong by defining "natural" as minimally-processed with no artificial flavors, colors, preservatives or sweeteners.

Were You Duped by Kashi's Wholesome Brand Identity?

People generally tend to believe that the word "natural" refers to foods grown "in a natural way," which really amounts to organic farming methods, or close to it; sans harsh chemicals, and most definitely not something that has been genetically engineered. Unfortunately, that's not what the "natural" label represents at all. In fact, the "natural" label is unregulated, and companies can define it as they please.

But most food manufacturers are well aware of this general misperception of what the label means, and frequently misuse it to lure health conscious consumers into spending more. This is known as "green-washing" and it certainly applies in this case.

Adding insult to injury, the company appears to have made a poor attempt to save face by further misleading consumers about the accuracy of the information that led the Rhode Island grocer to not carry the Kashi brand anymore.

The Cornucopia Institute released a report, Cereal Crimes, back in November of last year², which details the presence of genetically engineered grains in a number of leading "natural" cereal brands, including Kellogg's Kashi brand. Shockingly, many of the products tested were found to contain high amounts of genetically engineered grains—some, including Kashi, containing 100 percent genetically engineered grains!

The report also mentions a class action lawsuit filed against Kellogg/Kashi on August 31, 2011, "for allegedly misleading consumers with its "natural" claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff."

The report contrasts these findings with tests of certified organic cereal products, which by law are not allowed to contain any genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides. While some were found to be mildly contaminated with genetically engineered ingredients, overall, the report highlights the fact that the ONLY way to ensure you're not buying a genetically engineered product is to buy a product bearing the USDA 100% Organic label.

When Greenwashing Attempts Finally Backfire...

Once the grocer's sign went viral and angry consumers began overloading the Kashi telephone lines, the company switched to a recorded message stating they were temporarily unable to accept calls. Then, according to an April 26 report by Cornucopia Institute³:

"When the company again began accepting calls, a Kashi consumer affairs employee, Rick Duran, told a Cornucopia staff member that "no actual testing" of their cereal products had been performed. This mimicked the analysis also offered in a response by the company in an online video posted that same afternoon on the Kashi Facebook page. The video spokesperson called Cornucopia's information "scientifically inaccurate and misleading because it was not based on actual testing of Kashi products."

"This characterization of our work by Kashi is blatantly false," said Will Fantle, Cornucopia's Research Director. "We purchased a readily available box of Kashi's GoLean® cereal from a Whole Foods store. We then sent a sample to an accredited national lab for testing, finding that the soy in the natural cereal was 100% GMO."

The Kashi video also suggested, disingenuously, that any genetically engineered contamination in their food was from incidental sources rather than crops intentionally grown from GMO seed. While acknowledging that over 80% of the soybeans grown in North America are GMO, they explain that, "practices in agricultural storage, handling, and shipping, have lead to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled."

"This is classic public relations spin and crisis communications work, where corporations use misinformation to try to cover their tracks," said Rebekah Wilce, of the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, which helps expose corporate PR tactics..."

Three days later, the USA Today reported⁴:

"... Kellogg got itself into trouble by "not being entirely transparent," says Roger Nyhus, president of Nyhus Communications in Seattle. He sees a trend among some companies "of fudging language to allay consumer concerns and jump on the green bandwagon, and I think it's starting to backfire."  ... Kashi's DeSouza says that by 2015, all new Kashi products will "contain at least 70 percent USDA organic certified ingredients."

So, in a matter of days, Kashi ended up backpedaling as their initial attempt to discredit the Cornucopia Institute's test results backfired, and now the company has agreed to ensure their products will, within the next three years, contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. While this is probably not going to be enough for most health conscious consumers, Kashi's pledge is at least a good demonstration of the power of consumer education, and that consumers ultimately have the power to influence even the largest of food companies. After all, they can only sell what you're willing to buy!

"Natural" Label is Frequently Misused to Lure Health Conscious Consumers

The misuse of the term "natural" by companies who simply pay lip service to  sustainability and the organic movement undermines companies that are truly sincere in their efforts to bring you eco-friendly, unadulterated, safe foods.

And companies like Kashi cannot rightfully claim ignorance about the impact the word "natural" has—marketing firm polls have shown that more people respond favorably to the "all-natural" label than the organic label! It's a powerful word that conjures up wholesomeness in most people's minds. Marketing terms such as "natural" are certainly not chosen willy-nilly. No, they're selected based on what works and what sells. As illustrated by this market research summary by The Hartman Group⁵:

"Consumer understanding and shopping behavior of organic and natural foods and beverages continues to change and evolve. Today's consumers are confused, yet continue to be engaged by the vast array of products, messages, symbols and labels they encounter when making decisions about what to eat or drink and where they shop.

... This study will identify the hierarchy among these attributes and point out differences by product category as well as deeper distinctions between "organic" and "natural" themselves. It will enable companies to go beyond the clutter of product call-outs to have a singular focus on what matters most to consumers thereby increasing brand loyalty and likelihood of purchase"

According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of genetically engineered ingredients, so Kashi's statement that there's nothing wrong with using genetically engineered ingredients in their "natural" products is rather weak. Food companies know this misconception exists, and they actively prey on consumers' assumptions. Fortunately, the Cornucopia Institute's report has awakened many to this sad truth. As one now-former Kashi consumer stated on the company's Facebook page:

 "Yours is the only brand cereal I have bought for years. Not anymore! You are despicable. Everything you supposedly stand for is a lie."

The Difference Between Natural and Organic

It's important to understand that the "natural" label is not regulated and does not provide a guarantee of being free of genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides and additives. Currently, the ONLY label that can protect you against genetically engineered ingredients and other unsavory additives is the USDA 100% Organic label.

The USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) took effect October 21, 2002, and regulates the standards for any farm, wild crop harvesting, or handling operation that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced. The labeling requirements of the NOP apply to raw, fresh products and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredients⁶. In order to qualify as organic, a product must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodiversity.

Crops must be grown without synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers⁷. Organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and cannot be given antibiotics or growth hormones.

• Products labeled "USDA 100% organic" must contain only organically produced materials
• Products labeled simply "USDA organic" must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients, whereas
• The label "made with organic ingredients" can contain anywhere between 70 to 95 percent organic ingredients

Organic products cannot be irradiated, are not allowed to contain preservatives or flavor enhancing chemicals, nor can they contain traces of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by the FDA⁸. Additionally, the pesticide residue level cannot be higher than 5 percent of the maximum EPA pesticide tolerance⁹. For the complete National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the USDA organic label, see this link¹⁰. To learn more about organic foods and the findings detailed in the Cereal Crimes report, please listen to my interview with Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute.

Download Interview Transcript

Mom Stands Up to Monsanto and Wins Major Environmental Award

Genetically engineered foods do not just pose a health hazard for those consuming them. GE crops also threaten the health of the environment and those living in GE farming communities, due to the heavy use of pesticides required to grow these crops.

A woman in Argentina who was instrumental in getting the president of Argentina to investigate the connection between pesticide use and the incidence of cancer and other devastating illnesses and deaths in her town has been awarded the 2012 Goldman Environmental Prize—the world's largest prize honoring grassroots environmentalists. The Goldman recognizes unsung heroes who often take great personal risks to work to protect the world's natural resources and human lives.

Thirteen years ago Sofia Gatica gave birth to a daughter who died three days later of kidney failure. Determined to learn what killed her child, she learned that the people in her working-class neighborhood, surrounded by genetically engineered soy fields and subjected to regular insecticide spraying, were plagued with unexplained health issues including high rates of neurological and respiratory diseases, birth defects, and infant mortality. Even though she faced an uphill battle and death threats, Gatica succeeded in getting a municipal ordinance passed prohibiting aerial spraying around her town. Argentina's Supreme Court followed with a ruling that not only banned chemical spraying near populated areas, but ordered the government and soy producers to prove the chemicals are safe.  

The Devastating Health Effects of Roundup

As of July 2013, Argentina will no longer allow the use of endulsofan, an off-patent organochlorine insecticide, and Gatica is currently involved with an effort to enact a nationwide ban on glyphosate as well. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is used on all genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops, which have been genetically altered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the chemical.

Glyphosate is easily one of the world's most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications¹¹. The malformations primarily affected the:

• Skull
• Face
• Midline and developing brain
• Spinal cord

The amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, in terms of being close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed. According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Genetically engineered soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg!¹² That's 10 times lower than the MRL. Other independent scientific research has also found that glyphosate has the potential to cause grave health damage, including a 2009 study that tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, and even then the cells died within 24 hours.¹³

from Articles : GMO, Soy, Food, Children's Health https://ift.tt/sqR6cNr
via IFTTT

It's our annual Regenerative Agriculture Week again, and to give you an update, I interviewed Ronnie Cummins, co-founder and international director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). OCA is one of the nonprofits we donate a portion of our revenues to each year.

While giving out information is important, we also want to make sure we can pave the way to make it easier for you to actually implement healthy changes such as switching to an organic diet. That's hard to do unless organic foods are readily available, and OCA is wholly dedicated to that mission.

About the OCA

The OCA is actually a family of organizations that include Regeneration International, which has a research farm in Mexico. It's staffed by about 50 people, mainly agronomists and farm workers. They also have a research farm in Minnesota that operates primarily during growing season. In the winter, they grow foods in a specially designed solar powered greenhouse.

"There is a way to grow green vegetables year-round, but we have to stop prioritizing GMO soybeans and corn in the Midwest and start prioritizing food for real people if we're going to do that," Cummins says.

"In Mexico, it's a totally different situation. We're in a semi-desert area near San Miguel de Allende. Our research on regenerative and organic food here is focused on how you can grow a bunch of food and basically restore the environment when you don't have wells and you don't have rainfall eight months a year.

We only get rain three or four months a year, so it's necessary to use all these permaculture type practices. In a good year, we get 20 inches [of rainfall].

So, we have ponds where we catch millions of liters of water from the mountains. We have cisterns below all the buildings. We catch the water on the roofs and put it into the cisterns. We have composting toilets, recycled shower water, and we try to grow crops and trees that are adapted to low moisture."

The 75-acre farm needs to collect and store about 12 million liters or 3 million gallons of water during the rainy season, which then has to last the rest of the year.

Crops that work well in this semi-desert and have low water requirements include native desert plants and trees like agave and mesquite. Growing these has allowed the farm to re-green the desert landscape and produce fermented animal feed that's both inexpensive and healthy.

Air Layering Project to Begin

The regenerative farm in Mexico is now gearing up for a new reforestation project. By taking a limb from a healthy mesquite tree, adding some natural hormones and wrapping the branch with a bag filled with compost, you will, after three to four months, have a small tree ready for planting as new roots grow into the compost-filled bag. At that point, you can either plant it into a container, or directly into the soil. This process is known as "air layering."

"Our 1-year-old mesquite trees are as big as a 7-year-old mesquite tree from a seed," Cummins says. "It's a method that we're really excited about. People in the Southwestern U.S., Texas and the Southwest, are very familiar with mesquite because there's so many of them.

Texas, I believe, has 55 million acres of mesquite. The bean pods on the trees are highly nutritious. You can make flour and bake with it. Animals also love the pods as an animal feed."

The roots of the mesquite tree can burrow hundreds of feet down in search of water, and they in turn provide nutrition for other plants. As explained by Cummins, they exchange liquid carbon from the tree for the nutrients from the soil.

"The combination of the native agaves and these types of nitrogen fixing trees is the real key to restoring the environment," Cummins says. "Originally, 400 years ago, this was a savanna. It had oak trees. It had lots of mesquite trees. It had a different climate.

The timber was valuable, though. The Spaniards basically deforested much of Mexico over the years, because they needed charcoal for the silver mines. In Europe, they loved the mesquite trees and the oak trees for building purposes — building ships, houses and so on. Once they deforested large swaths of Mexico ... it changed the climate.

Now, the native trees need human intervention to reforest. But if you can come up with a system, which we have, that rewards the small farmer or the rancher right away — in this case because they get low-cost animal feed that's much cheaper than alfalfa or corn silage — you can get people to start adopting this [strategy].

We've planted about 350,000 agave seedlings in the last two years, and we're seeing the popularity of this system now starting to spread. We're actually getting inquiries from all over the world now, including ranchers in Texas who would like to improve their pastures and their ecosystems in general."

Creating a Win-Win Situation

When you hear "agave," chances are your mind goes straight to tequila. As explained by Cummins, the state of Jalisco grows 500 million blue agave plants for the tequila industry. The problem is, they're being grown as a monoculture. All preexisting vegetation is cut down to make room for the agave. They also use chemical fertilizers, typically RoundUp. Together, it degrades the landscape rather than improves it.

What OCA and Regenerative International are doing is organic, regenerative and biodynamic. It preserves biodiversity and makes use of the natural potential of the plants. The big breakthrough came when a local farmer figured out that the leaves of the agave plant, which are huge biomass, can be fermented and turned into nutritious animal feed.

A single agave leaf can weigh 40 to 80 pounds, and these leaves were always discarded. "For thousands of years they were considered junk," Cummins says. What they found was that you can place finely chopped leaves in a closed container and ferment them.

To that, you can also add mesquite pods. Cummins has been using a mix of 80% to 90% agave leaf and 10% to 20% mesquite pods. This mix is superior to alfalfa in terms of nutrition, but costs only a third or a quarter of the price.

Cows, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and even sheepdogs, enjoy it. A big part of the cost-savings is from the reduced water consumption. Alfalfa needs about 26 times more water than agave and mesquite. Most of the animals on the farm eat the natural vegetation and get the agave mash as a supplement. However, by adding garbanzo beans — another low-water crop — you could produce a feed that the animals could live on exclusively.

"We think it's a good idea to graze the animals," Cummins says, "even in the dry season when there's not much vegetation. But we graze them a lot less than has become the custom over the last 100 years.

Sixty percent of Mexico, like the Southwestern U.S., is semi-desert arid, and it's been over-grazed. So, we need to get back to a regenerative grazing situation where you partly rest the land, you're reforesting it and using contours to help retain the rainwater.

Forty percent of the world is arid or semi-arid, and is in danger of reverting to outright desert where nothing will grow. But we can reverse this process using native plants and organic and permaculture techniques that modern organic farmers have developed over the last 50 to 100 years.

Alfalfa is a great perennial if you have plenty of water and you're not draining the aquifer. But that's not the way it's being done. In Southern California, the giant dairy farms, the giant feed lots that are feeding alfalfa to the animals across the Southwest, these areas do not have the water availability to be doing this. We've got to stop that and start looking at the long-term water resources we have."

Bringing the Rain

The amazing thing about reforestation is that it can actually change the climate and improve rainfall. Regenerative ranchers in Northern Mexico, in the Chihuahuan Desert, who have added 1 million acres of rotational grazing, report getting 15% to 20% more rainfall than their neighbors who haven't regenerated their land.

"You can literally bring back rain to a level that was traditionally there, if you regenerate the landscape," Cummins says. "You do this not just with human ingenuity and stewardship, but the animals are totally necessary to speed up this process. We need animals grazing in areas, even the semi-arid arid areas, but we don't want them to over-graze ...

We need to use their natural behavior in conjunction with what we're doing to restore the environment. And we can do that."

New Market Opportunities

Cummins laid out a plan for transforming the U.S. through regenerative practices in his 2020 book, "Grassroots Rising." In the U.S., market demand is one of the primary factors driving regenerative farming and ranching. There is a bigger demand for grass fed meat and animal products now than there was 10 years ago, but it's not growing fast enough.

Feed lots and factory farming still dominate, in part because that's what our government subsidizes. Changing the farming subsidies to prioritize regenerative farming would go a long way to changing the status quo. Encouraging private investors to put their money where their mouth is, is another possibility.

"I'm pretty excited about this. There's a new type of asset being developed on the stock exchange. The rules are being written up by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are called Natural Asset Stocks, or Natural Asset Corporations.

This is a type of stock different from anything we've seen up until now. The government of Costa Rica, for example, is putting all the lands that the government owns, the forests and the farmlands, into a Natural Asset Corporation.

So, if you're a manager of a pension fund, or an investor, or a corporation, you can invest in one of these natural assets. You don't own the land, you're not having a lien on any of the income that comes from this land. What you own are the ecosystem services that the land provides.

For example, you've got this system of agave and mesquite trees. We are incorporating now to where someone can own the environmental services. In other words, the amount of water that we're saving, the amount of carbon that we're sequestering, the amount of methane that our animals are releasing — they're releasing less when they eat this fermented silage.

Instead of going to a corporation or a foundation and looking for a donation, what you do is you say, 'Would you like to invest in a natural asset?' And then over time, as the forest matures, as the system matures, as you regenerate the soil, your asset is worth more money. If you choose to sell that asset, you can actually make money off of it.

This is very appealing to Wall Street at this point. They're really worried about their reputation, as they should be, but they also are not going to change overnight what they're doing. But this is a way that they can pull some of their assets out of financial assets and put them into ecosystem assets, and still get a return on their money.

But this is like organic certification. You can't just say that you're doing a benefit to the environment and then get people to invest in this benefit. You have to be able to prove it. We've developed a system of verification that is quite accurate scientifically. It involves measuring things like the numbers of plants, the size of the plants. You do soil analysis and so on, the traditional things you would look at.

But then with modern technology, it's possible to fly a drone over the area and take photographs. And then you compare your measurements on the ground with what the drone is seeing through their multiple cameras.

And then you develop an algorithm and progressions to where you can then fly the drone over another area that you haven't measured on the ground, and you get the readings on how much carbon biomass is in the environment. You get a reading on other ecosystem services."

Reasons To Be Hopeful

They're also using a blockchain accounting system to verify the calculations and make it very difficult to cheat. So, anyone who invests in a natural asset will be able to verify, several years down the road, at a very low cost, whether the asset has improved or degenerated.

"When people ask, 'Are you really greening the desert?' 'Are you really restoring the environment?' 'Are you conserving water?' 'Are you producing important food for animals and humans?' you'll be able to prove it one package.

There's $125 trillion out there invested in financial assets. Most of this is degenerating the planet. But there's $125 trillion-worth of natural assets that are not valued right now. We believe that approximately 1% of the financiers and the corporate money managers and pension managers right now are quite concerned about the environment, the same way we are, and are ready to start moving a portion of their assets.

We only need to move 1% in the next decade to get the ball rolling. The benefits of regenerative food and farming are far beyond even just the ecosystem benefits. As we've seen during the pandemic, sales of organic food have grown substantially.

Sales of dietary supplements have grown substantially. A lot of people have learned the joys of cooking at home again, instead of going out to restaurants. We've got a potential market demand. We just need to get the ball rolling."

The Regenerative Network

Regenerative International, incorporated in 2014, has since built a global network of regenerative farmers and ranchers, with some 400 affiliates in 60 countries. You can find a map of these regenerative farms on RegenerationInternational.org.

Much of the energy over the past seven years has been spent on educating the world about the importance of regenerative farming practices, including its ability to improve climate, preserve water and improve nutrition. Today, most people have at least heard about regenerative farming.

The primary focus now is to seek out the best practices and make sure they're shared, publicized and duplicated. The fermented agave idea, for example, came from a local farmer who visited the Regeneration International farm in Mexico. He asked if they'd heard of fermenting the leaves for animal feed. He'd been doing it for 12 years, yet no one had ever heard of this strategy.

As it turns out, it's a fantastic solution that solves several problems at once. There may be other solutions out there that people just don't know about, and Regeneration International aims to find them and share them, worldwide.

My New Line of Certified Biodynamic Products

My team and I are even creating access to biodynamic practices and better food sources through Solspring®, an authentic food brand that offers Demeter Certified Biodynamic® and organic ingredients from across the globe.

Not only are we making it easier for the average person to shop, cook and consume biodynamic products they can trust, we're also supporting farmers worldwide by offering a premium price for their harvests. From the U.S. to India, we strongly support their transition to biodynamic practices, and building healthier, more diverse farmlands.

OCA Is Paving the Way

Since its inception in 1998, OCA has worked to educate people about organic, biodynamic, regenerative food. Cummins spent a couple of decades fighting for the organic industry before that as well. They've also educated the public to realize that farming does have a big impact on the environment.

"If you care about clean water, for example, you better care about regenerative agriculture," he says. "If you care about animals, you better care about how factory farming is an abomination, and so on. We've created, I believe, the potential market demand.

We simply have to have the products available, and we have to stop governments from subsidizing degenerate food and farming. The market has the potential to correct a lot of the problems out there, if we work together to do that."

Today's your chance to help us achieve that mission. Every dollar you donate, I will match during this fundraiser. As explained by Cummins, all funds raised are used to further the mission of OCA and Regenerative International.

>>>>> Donate Now <<<<<

"Most groups in the world that care about regenerative food and farming are strapped for cash. For example, we have 50 people at this research farm in Mexico. Most of them are graduate students from agronomy schools. We provide housing. We pay them a wage. It costs money to do this, and it costs money to pay for the school buses that come with kids on them, and the small farmers who come in to see what we're doing.

OCA has always tried to be an international organization, so part of the money we raise goes to our international staff. We have one staff person in Africa. We've got one in Southern France, one in Australia, one in Argentina. This is what we use our money for.

I spend half my time exposing the bad stuff ... and the other half on positive solutions. You get frustrated after 50 years in the organic movement of asking the government to please stop allowing cheating of standards. Lo and behold, we're getting to the point where we're going to be able to measure a lot of these things scientifically, and verify them. If USDA organic seal isn't enough, we'll have another seal that you can get behind.

In this day and age, you can know where each piece of meat came from, each fish, each vegetable. That's what we're going to have to move to. We need organic standards that are truthful. We have unfinished business in the U.S. because the government's special interests have blocked mandatory labeling of GMOs.

They're not requiring labels on nanotechnology. They're lying about pesticide residues, and so on. We have to keep fighting the battle for truthful labeling and transparency, [and] thank goodness, we're at a point where we're going to be able to have a better method, not only of farming, but of proving that [organic, regenerative methods] are being employed."

So, please consider making a donation to the OCA today! I'll match all donations, dollar for dollar during this weeklong fundraiser.

>>>>> Donate Now <<<<<

from Articles https://ift.tt/t7ZpWRQ
via IFTTT

On March 11, 2022, CDC researchers released results of a small study in children 5 to 15 years old, who had received two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine. The study’s conclusion, which included many caveats, was that there was reduction of COVID disease in just 31% of children aged 5 to 11 years compared to 59% in children 12 to 15 years old.

Despite questionable disease risk reduction from their own data, the recommendation was that all children as young as 5 years old should get the vaccine.¹

Even though fathers are spending more time sharing the raising of children with mothers today,² national surveys show that women with minor children still remain the primary child care givers in America.^3,4

The ones who usually take children to doctors, mothers on the front line are soon expected to make decisions about giving babies as young as 6 months old the new genetically engineered Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine when the FDA predictably approves it for emergency use this spring.^5,6

Public health officials want doctors to give the mRNA vaccine, which forces the body’s cells to manufacture the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, to the most vulnerable age group,⁷ the tiny babies and young children under 5 years old, whose immune systems and brains are not yet fully developed.^8,9,10 It is an age group that mothers historically have been the most responsible for nurturing and protecting from harm.

Fastest Development of An Experimental Shot in History

The targeting of infants and toddlers for COVID vaccination comes two years after the U.S. government declared a coronavirus public health emergency in January 2020¹¹ and then gave Pfizer and six other drug companies $9 billion to manufacture a coronavirus vaccine at warp speed.¹²

Most vaccines take at least 10 years to go through the development and testing licensing process before being approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for distribution.¹³

Pfizer spent just 248 days testing their experimental COVID vaccine using a never-before licensed technology, which injects synthetic mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles into the body to induce cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and become — in the words of the World Economic Forum — “vaccine production plants.”^14,15

In December 2020, the FDA granted Pfizer and its German corporation partner BioNTech, an Emergency Use Authorization — or EUA — to release the unlicensed mRNA vaccine for use by every person over 16 years old.^16,17 That EUA was quickly followed six months later by one for children as young as 12,¹⁸ then five months later with authorization for children as young as 5.¹⁹

It is the fastest development and mass administration of an experimental vaccine to healthy humans in history,²⁰ and the first vaccine to be distributed and recommended for mass use under an Emergency Use Authorization.²¹ Although the FDA fully licensed Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine in August 2021 as “safe, pure and potent” for 16-year-olds,²² it still is not officially licensed for children younger than that.

FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization Comes With Big Assumptions

By February 2022, only about 55% of children over age 12 in America had gotten two doses of the Pfizer COVID vaccine, while just 30% of 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least one dose.²³

Perhaps mothers are not impressed with the dodgy rationale FDA officials used to justify handing Pfizer an EUA using vague language with large assumptions like it is “reasonable to believe” the vaccine “may be effective” and “reasonable to conclude based on the totality of the scientific evidence available” that the “known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine.”²⁴

Those kinds of sweeping caveats clearly demonstrate that an EUA allows a lower standard for scientific evidence of the product’s safety and effectiveness than full licensure.²⁵ In fact, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is still an investigational product, still experimental whenever it is given to a child under 16 years old.^26,27

So far, parents in America are split down the middle when it comes to the idea of giving young children Pfizer’s new COVID-19 vaccine. Half of parents²⁸ are uncomfortable with injecting synthetic mRNA coated in lipid nanoparticles into the cells of their child’s body, which is supposed to prevent a bad case of COVID disease — but not necessarily prevent their child from being infected with the virus and transmitting it to others.^29,30

With researchers finding that many SARS-CoV-2 infections in young children are asymptomatic and go undetected,³¹ and with evidence that natural immunity from infection is broad and persistent,^32,33 parents are asking legitimate questions about why their young children are candidates for this vaccine.

A recent survey found that half of parents were worried about (1) whether the vaccine has been studied long enough in children; (2) whether there are long term side effects; (3) whether the vaccine’s experimental mRNA technology is safe; (4) whether the vaccines work, and (5) the effect of short-term side effects.³⁴

Research published in February 2022 revealed that one-third of parents say they will “wait and see” before vaccinating a child under 5 years old and 26% say they will “definitely not” allow their infant or toddler to receive the COVID vaccine.³⁵

With the majority of parents worried about whether Pfizer’s COVID vaccine carries unacceptable risks, is effective, or is necessary for their child, what kind of information about COVID disease and the vaccine is being given to mothers taking children to pediatricians around the country?

Are Moms Being Given Complete Information About COVID Shots?

Is the information accurate and complete? Are pediatricians treating mothers with respect and allowing them to exercise voluntary informed consent to COVID vaccination on behalf of a minor child, or are mothers being threatened and punished if they say, “no thanks?”³⁶ How many doctors plan to deny medical care to children when their mothers decline the COVID vaccine?

A 2020 study reported that more than half of U.S. pediatricians refuse to care for a child if their mothers decline to give the child even one of the four dozen doses of other vaccines CDC officials insist all children must get before age 6.^37,38,39,40

To stop mothers from being able to exercise informed consent to vaccination on behalf of their children, medical trade associations have lobbied state legislatures to pass laws giving doctors permission to extract consent for any type of vaccination from children as young as 11 years old without the knowledge of their parents⁴¹ and, in 2020, the District of Columbia was the first to pass that kind of law.^42,43

Five states (Alabama, Oregon, South Carolina, North Carolina and Rhode Island) have passed laws to give doctors the power to persuade children between 14 and 16 years old to get COVID vaccine without telling parents.⁴⁴

If you cringe thinking about whether your 11-year-old or teenager is intellectually, psychologically and emotionally equipped to accurately weigh the potential benefits and risks of a vaccine and resist the pressure from a doctor telling them what to do,⁴⁵ you are not alone.

As a co-founder of the charitable National Vaccine Information Center established in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education,⁴⁶ I have never been more concerned about a new vaccine the government wants doctors to give to every infant and child.

As a mother of three and now a grandmother, as a college-educated woman who completely trusted my pediatrician when I took my healthy 2.5-year-old son for a DPT shot in 1980 and then watched him suffer a convulsion, collapse and brain inflammation reaction that put him in a special education classroom,⁴⁷ I urge all mothers to become fully informed about the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 vaccine before making a vaccination decision for a child of any age.

All Vaccines Come With Two Risks

Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that come with two risks: a risk the vaccine will cause a reaction that could cause harm, and a risk the vaccine will fail to protect against infection and transmission of a disease that could cause harm.

Because we are all individuals born with different genes and environmental influences, the risks for disease complications or vaccine complications can be greater for some, depending upon genetic, epigenetic, environmental and other biological factors unique to the individual.^48,49,50,51

If the risks of COVID vaccination turn out to be 100% for your child — whether it is because the vaccine causes a severe reaction or fails to prevent severe complications of the disease — you should know that in June 2020, Congress completely shielded vaccine manufacturers and anyone administering the COVID vaccine from product liability and malpractice lawsuits in civil court.^52,53 So whatever happens, you will be on your own.

At the National Vaccine information Center, we do not make vaccine use recommendations, but we do defend without compromise the human right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk-taking.⁵⁴ You have the moral right and should have the legal right to accept or refuse a vaccine for yourself or your minor child without being sanctioned in any way.⁵⁵

This commentary offers an overview of COVID disease and the vaccine, with a focus on the genetically engineered messenger mRNA COVID vaccine manufactured by Pfizer being recommended for children by federal government officials and medical trade associations in the U.S. I encourage you to check out the library of over 200 live-linked references anchoring this commentary on NVIC.org to verify the content and do your own research.

Most Coronaviruses Cause Mild Symptoms Like the Common Cold

Coronaviruses are a group of diverse, single stranded RNA viruses that have been around for thousands of years and infect animals, as well as humans.

Coronaviruses usually cause mild respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms like those of the common cold,⁵⁶ with the exception of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) that emerged in China in 2002, and the coronavirus causing Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) identified in Jordan and Saudi Arabia in 2012 - both of which had high mortality rates.⁵⁷

About 20% of cold or flu-like upper respiratory infections each year are caused by coronaviruses and there is evidence that many people already have at least partial natural immunity to common coronavirus infections.

Some researchers think this may be one reason why the current SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mild for most healthy children and many adults,⁵⁸ and why COVID-19 tests can generate false positive results because the tests pick up evidence of previous coronavirus infections.^59,60

Controversy Over Origins of COVID, Shot Effectiveness, Safety

Since early 2020, public health officials have insisted that the SARS-CoV-2 virus spontaneously jumped into a human out of a bat at a wet food market in China and the only way to end the pandemic is to lock down, mask up, and require everyone to be vaccinated.^{61,62,63,64,65,66} There are prominent scientists, doctors, ethicists, attorneys, lawmakers and journalists around the world, who disagree with that view. They point out there is compelling evidence:

• that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was created in a lab and top health officials did not want the public to know about it;^67,68,69,70
• that fast tracked mRNA COVID vaccines have not been thoroughly tested by drug companies, which have failed to release all the clinical trial data, and both the companies and public health officials are downplaying serious vaccine-related reactions and deaths;^{71,72,73,74,75,76,77}
• that the most widely-used mRNA COVID manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna may prevent serious disease complications, but vaccinated people can still get infected with and transmit the new coronavirus to other people,⁷⁸ and any temporary protection from COVID disease wanes quickly after vaccination;⁷⁹
• that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is mostly asymptomatic or mild in healthy children and young adults⁸⁰ and that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or broader and longer lasting than COVID vaccine acquired artificial immunity;^81,82,83,84 and
• that governments have done more harm than good by locking down societies and creating masking and vaccine mandates;^{85,86,87,88,89,90,91}

Here are four questions you need to keep in mind when you are making a COVID-19 vaccine decision for your minor child:

1. HOW SERIOUS IS COVID-19 DISEASE IN CHILDREN?

By February 2022, the new coronavirus had evolved from the original alpha variant that human populations had no immunological experience with, to the more transmissible and severe Delta variant that emerged in the summer of 2021, to the Omicron variant that became dominant in late 2021.⁹²

Omicron is highly contagious but causes fewer complications and hospitalizations than Delta,⁹³ and there is speculation that the fact so many people have developed various degrees of natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is one reason why hospitalizations and deaths are coming down in the U.S.^94,95

As of February 14, 2022, COVID-19 death rates reported by states in the previous seven days ranged from 0.26 to about 1.5 deaths per 100,000 people.⁹⁶

To put the worst case 1.5 COVID-related deaths per 100,000 people rate into perspective, the annual death rate for some of the leading causes of death in the U.S. in 2014 were: 193 deaths per 100,000 for heart disease; 186 per 100,000 for cancer; 46 per 100,000 for chronic respiratory disease; 24 per 100,000 for diabetes; 15 per 100,000 for drug overdoses.⁹⁷

Severe COVID Most Likely in Chronically Ill People Over 65

At the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, it became obvious that most of the serious complications of COVID-19 disease leading to hospitalizations and death do not occur in children or healthy young adults, but in people over age 65, especially if they have one or more chronic health problems.

In 2020, researchers projected that about 45 percent of the U.S. adult population was at increased risk for complications from SARS-CoV-2 infections because of underlying heart or respiratory disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer.⁹⁸

One big study sponsored by the CDC looked at the connection between underlying medical conditions and severe illness among more than 500,000 adults with COVID-19 admitted to 800 US hospitals in 2020 and 2021. Researchers found that 95 percent of adult COVID patients had at least one underlying poor health condition like high blood pressure and obesity.⁹⁹ The strongest risk factors for death were obesity, anxiety and fear disorders, and diabetes with complications.

Children with chronic health problems are also at risk for COVID disease complications. The CDC states on its website that, “In the United States, more than 40% of school-aged children and adolescents have at least one chronic health condition, such as asthma, obesity, other physical conditions, and behavior/learning problems.”¹⁰⁰

Most Serious COVID-19 Occurs in Chronically Ill Children

A large cross-sectional study funded by the CDC examined the health records of more than 43,000 patients under the age of 18 with a COVID diagnosis who visited the emergency room or were admitted to 900 US hospitals in 2020 or January 2021.¹⁰¹

The median age of child COVID patients was 12 years old. Researchers found that about 29 percent of the child COVID patients had underlying chronic conditions like asthma; obesity; and neurodevelopmental, depressive, anxiety and fear-related disorders.

The strongest risk factors for hospitalization were type 1 diabetes and obesity. The strongest risk factors for severe COVID illness were type 1 diabetes and congenital cardiac and circulatory problems. Prematurity was a risk factor for severe COVID illness in children under two years old.¹⁰² Those with a COVID diagnosis represented only about 1% of all children who visited an emergency room or were admitted to the hospital.

More than 81% of COVID related deaths in the U.S. have occurred in seniors over age 65 and deaths in that age group are 80 times higher than for people between 18 and 29.¹⁰³ The COVID case fatality rate for children by February 2022 was measured at less than one percent in the U.S.¹⁰⁴

Healthy Infants and Children Usually Have No or Mild Symptoms

Studies have shown that most healthy infants and children with COVID disease either have no symptoms or much milder symptoms than adults, which last about a week.¹⁰⁵ COVID disease symptoms in the majority of healthy children are similar to a cold or flu-like illness and range from fever, sore throat, fatigue and body aches to runny nose and congestion, headache, cough, nausea and diarrhea.

As with most respiratory diseases, pneumonia is always a risk and, clearly, risks for COVID complications are higher for children with certain types of underlying chronic disease.¹⁰⁶

Severe complications of COVID-19 disease in some individuals appear to involve a hyper-inflammatory response by the immune system to infection with SARS-CoV-2. This can lead to cytokine storm involving elevated levels of circulating cytokines and immune-cell hyperactivation that can lead to severe respiratory distress and death if the inflammation does not resolve.¹⁰⁷

There is a condition called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) that has been reported rarely, and obese children are most at risk. Symptoms include a prolonged fever, unusual fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea, red skin rash, abdominal pain, red lips and eyes and swollen hands or feet.¹⁰⁸

Children With COVID at Very Low Risk of Hospitalization, Death

While the majority of people diagnosed with COVID disease have mild to moderate symptoms, about 10 to 15% become severely ill and five percent become critically ill. Most recover in two to three weeks, but researchers estimate about one in five may have symptoms for five or more weeks and one in 10 people will have symptoms that last for 12 weeks or longer.¹⁰⁹

Symptoms of “long Covid,” can include fatigue, shortness of breath, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, cough, chest pain, altered smell and taste, diarrhea, difficulty thinking clearly, memory loss, anxiety and sleep disorders. About four percent of children may experience “long Covid” symptoms like fatigue, headache and loss of smell and the majority recover within eight weeks.¹¹⁰

If infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, healthy children have a very low risk of being hospitalized or dying. A U.S. state data report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics on February 3, 2022 found that out of about 1.2 million COVID-related hospitalizations, only 3% were children. Out of 821,369 reported COVID deaths in the U.S., 828 of those deaths or .01% were in children.¹¹¹

2. ARE THERE WAYS TO PREVENT OR TREAT COVID COMPLICATIONS?

One of the great tragedies of the coronavirus pandemic over the past two years has been that very few drugs and effective medical protocols have been approved by the government to help people prevent or recover from the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 95 percent of the public funds appropriated by the U.S. and other governments to fund the global response to the coronavirus pandemic were given to multi-national drug companies to develop and deliver vaccines, while only five percent was spent on exploring therapies to treat COVID disease.¹¹² There are still very few FDA-approved drugs or therapies available for doctors to treat COVID disease.

Most of the anti-viral COVID drugs approved by the FDA under an EUA are very expensive,^113,114,115 and there are unanswered questions about risks and whether they work very well.^{116,117,118,119} In early 2020, practicing physicians searching for ways to help people with COVID began repurposing already licensed drugs for off-label use, a common practice that has been allowed under FDA law for many years.¹²⁰

Some Doctors Use Repurposed Licensed Drugs to Treat COVID

Some of the more affordable licensed drugs that have been repurposed by physicians to treat COVID over the past two years include the Nobel award winning anti-parasitic, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory drug Ivermectin.^{121,122,123,124,125,126}

Vitamins, minerals and supplements that have been used to help prevent or address COVID complications include the Vitamins D,^127,128 C,¹²⁹ and B complex;¹³⁰ magnesium;¹³¹ quercetin;^132,133 melatonin,¹³⁴ curcumin,¹³⁵ zinc,¹³⁶ NAC,¹³⁷ probiotics,¹³⁸ Omega 3s,¹³⁹ glutathione¹⁴⁰ and aspirin.¹⁴¹

As with all drugs and supplements, it is important to have a knowledgeable doctor direct treatment in the appropriate doses and for the right length of time, because what may work and is safe at one stage of the disease may not be during another stage.

The Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCCA)¹⁴² and World Council for Health¹⁴³ are two groups of doctors who have developed COVID-19 treatment protocols that are not endorsed by government health officials but are being used by a number of health professionals around the world to treat adults and children with COVID.

High Mortality Rate for COVID Patients Hospitalized in US

With an average 38 percent mortality rate for seriously ill COVID patients admitted to U.S. hospitals in 2020,¹⁴⁴ and with COVID patients who are put on a ventilator experiencing a 45 to 85 percent mortality rate,^145,146,147 it is no wonder independent doctors have been exploring options for reducing COVID complications and keeping patients out of hospitals.

Yet, these doctors are being criticized by public health officials discouraging the use of repurposed licensed drugs like ivermectin¹⁴⁸ and over-the-counter supplements¹⁴⁹ that peer reviewed studies have shown either prevent severe disease and improve, or have the potential to improve, survival.¹⁵⁰

Medical boards in some states are trying remove the medical licenses from those doctors,¹⁵¹ and it can be difficult to find a doctor in the U.S. willing to depart from the few government approved medical protocols for treating COVID.¹⁵² The National Institutes of Health warns that:¹⁵³

“Research hasn’t clearly shown that any dietary supplement helps prevent COVID-19 or can decrease the severity of COVID-19 symptoms. Only vaccines and medications can prevent COVID-19 and treat its symptoms.”

No Drugs Specifically Approved to Treat Children With COVID

The only guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control for treatment of children with COVID are dated December 2020 and state, “Currently, there are no drugs specifically approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID-19 in children.”¹⁵⁴

NIH has a child treatment guide, which states that “Most children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will not require any specific therapy” and “There are limited data on the pathogenesis and clinical spectrum of COVID-19 disease in children.” It goes on to say that:

“There are no pediatric data from placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and limited data from observational studies to inform the development of pediatric-specific recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19.”¹⁵⁵

After lockdowns and forced masking and a year that saw many Americans subjected to mandatory COVID vaccination to enter public spaces and keep their jobs, it is very sad that government officials have done so little to investigate and approve therapies to address COVID disease.

One political explanation is that under FDA regulations, drug companies cannot receive emergency use authorization to distribute fast tracked experimental vaccines (or drugs) if there are “adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”¹⁵⁶

3. HOW EFFECTIVE IS PFIZER’S COVID VACCINE?

After the coronavirus pandemic was declared by public health officials in early 2020 and governments asked drug companies to fast track development of experimental COVID vaccines, the FDA issued guidelines assuring the companies that vaccine trials would only have to demonstrate “at least 50%” efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 disease.

There was no requirement for companies to prove their COVID vaccines prevent infection and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.^157,158 Perhaps that is one reason why the vaccines are called COVID vaccines and not SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

But the general public did not and still does not understand the difference. That is because for more than a century, people have been carefully taught to believe that a vaccine produces artificial immunity in the body to prevent transmission of contagious diseases to other people.¹⁵⁹

CDC Changed Definition of ‘Vaccine’ and ‘Vaccination’

CDC officials frequently have referred to vaccines as “immunizations.”¹⁶⁰ But in 2021, the CDC suddenly changed its definition of “vaccine” from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”¹⁶¹

The Merriam Webster Dictionary also changed its definition of “vaccine” to eliminate the concept that a vaccine stimulates “immunity” and replaced it with the concept that vaccines create an “immune response.”¹⁶²

Up until now, the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” have been synonymous with creating “artificial immunity” in humans and animals.¹⁶³

The rewriting of that definition to admit that vaccines cannot be presumed to confer immunity — only modify the person’s immune response — is stunning because mandatory vaccination laws historically have been based on the common belief that all infants and children must get vaccinated to create “herd immunity” and prevent the transmission of contagious diseases within a community.^164,165

If the definition of “vaccine” and “vaccination” no longer includes the concept of immunity,¹⁶⁶ then the definitions of vaccine “efficacy” and “effectiveness” have been forever changed as well.^167,168

Public Misled That Shots Prevent Infection and Transmission

To obtain the EUA in late 2020, Pfizer published clinical trial data involving about 43,000 participants over age 16, with more than 21,000 of them injected with the company’s experimental mRNA COVID vaccine. Pfizer said the data showed that two doses of the vaccine achieved a 95% efficacy for preventing severe COVID disease.^169,170

Most mainstream media reports publicizing the Pfizer clinical trial results misled the public into believing that a 95 percent “efficacy” rate meant the vaccine reliably prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection.¹⁷¹ Americans obeying mask mandates put into place before the vaccine was released, assumed that they would be able to ditch the mask and stop social distancing once they got vaccinated.¹⁷²

But in early 2021 when CDC officials did not back away from mask mandates for vaccinated persons, people started suspecting something was wrong about that assumption. Fully vaccinated people were told to keep the masks on and socially distance like unvaccinated people.¹⁷³

The logical question was: Why do fully vaccinated people have to worry about getting infected or infecting other people?

The answer to that question became obvious when study after study published in the medical literature since December 2020 showed that two or three doses of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine do not reliably prevent symptomatic or asymptomatic infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the vaccine has a very short shelf life for protection against COVID disease, waning within a few months of vaccination.^174,175,176

While that reality sets in, studies are revealing that naturally acquired immunity from the new coronavirus infection is broad and long-lasting,^{177,178,179,180,181} perhaps two years or more.¹⁸²

More COVID Booster Shots or Annual Re-Vaccination?

In fact, within four months of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine being approved by FDA for distribution, in April 2021 the company’s CEO called for a third shot — a booster dose — and suggested it was possible vaccinated people would have to get revaccinated every year.¹⁸³

Seven months later, the FDA dutifully approved the Pfizer booster shot for emergency use by everyone over 18 years old,¹⁸⁴ and on January 3, 2022, expanded the EUA to allow a third booster shot for children as young as 12 years old.¹⁸⁵ Now there is talk about a fourth booster shot.¹⁸⁶ And the Pfizer CEO is once again calling for annual COVID vaccinations in the future.¹⁸⁷

On February 1, 2022, Pfizer applied for an EUA to give its COVID vaccine to infants and young children between 6 months and 5 years old.¹⁸⁸

But, within 10 days, the request was suddenly withdrawn after indications that two 3-microgram doses of the vaccine did not prevent COVID disease symptoms in that age group and a third dose would be required to demonstrate efficacy.^189,190

4. HOW REACTIVE IS THE VACCINE AND ARE THERE SERIOUS RISKS?

After the FDA gave emergency use permission to Pfizer in December 2020 to distribute their COVID vaccine, the nonprofit group Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the FDA to immediately release 450,000 pages of Pfizer vaccine testing data that the agency relied upon to grant the EUA.

FDA officials refused the request, claiming it would take them 75 years to release all the trial data to the public. A lawsuit was filed and, on Jan 6, 2022, a Texas federal judge ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages every 30 days until all the requested pages were made public.¹⁹¹

The need for full public disclosure was reinforced by an allegation by a whistleblower, who had worked for a subcontractor involved in the first COVID vaccine clinical trial Pfizer conducted in 2020. She charged that there were serious irregularities in the trial, including falsification of data, lack of monitoring of trial participants after vaccination and failure to immediately follow up of patients who experienced adverse events.¹⁹²

Questions About Vaccine Safety Testing, Lack of Transparency

Pfizer has been haunted by questions about what it does and does not know about the reactivity and long-term side effects of its COVID vaccine ever since the FDA granted emergency use authorization after only nine months of testing.^193,194,195

To demonstrate safety, drug companies historically have been required to first test the experimental vaccine for toxicity in animals, followed up by Phase 1 and 2 human clinical trials to test the vaccine on a few hundred volunteers for detection of common side effects; then progress to Phase 3 trials that involve thousands of people to further identify potential serious reactions.¹⁹⁶

Although Pfizer did publish a few small animal studies testing its mRNA COVID vaccine on mice, rats and monkeys, most of the focus was on showing the vaccine was effective, not that it was safe.^{197,198,199,200}

To speed up the COVID vaccine testing process, FDA allowed Pfizer and other drug companies to conduct some of the animal and human clinical studies simultaneously, instead of sequentially.^201,202

To further accelerate approval, FDA also allowed companies to provide testing data from previous research on other types of experimental mRNA vaccines as preliminary proof that COVID mRNA vaccines were effective and safe, even though those other mRNA vaccines were never licensed.²⁰³

Majority in Pfizer Clinical Trials Had Adverse Events

In December 2020, Pfizer published results of a Phase 2/3 randomized saline placebo controlled human clinical trial in a bid to be the first company to obtain Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to distribute a COVID vaccine for mass use.

The company tested two 30 microgram doses of the vaccine given 21 days apart to about 21,700 healthy volunteers aged 16 and older who had not been previously diagnosed with COVID, and followed them up for between seven days and several months after the second dose to identify common and serious adverse events.²⁰⁴

The majority of vaccinated participants experienced a local or systemic reaction, with younger people more often reporting side effects like pain at the injection site, headache, fatigue, fever and swollen lymph glands that occurred more often after the second dose and lasted for several days but then resolved, according to Pfizer.

The few serious adverse events recorded after vaccination in the trial, such as cardiac arrythmia and a death from cardiac arrest, were dismissed by investigators as unrelated to the vaccine.²⁰⁵

In 2021, Pfizer published results of Phase 2/3 clinical trials testing two 30 microgram doses of its COVID vaccine on about 1,100 healthy 12- to 15-year-olds,²⁰⁶ and another one that tested two 10 microgram doses on about 1,500 healthy 5- to 11-year-olds, who had never been diagnosed with COVID.²⁰⁷

The children were followed up for seven days, one month and six months. For the 5- to 11-year-old children in the Phase 2/3 clinical trial who got the Pfizer COVID vaccine, researchers reduced the dose from 30 micrograms to 10 micrograms in an effort to lower the incidence of systemic reactions like fever.

On the CDC website in a summary of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reactions and adverse events, the CDC states that within seven days of vaccination over 90% of study participants aged 12 to 15 years reported at least one local or systemic reaction and among child study participants aged 5 to 11 years old, about 86% reported at least one local reaction and about 66% reported at least one systemic reaction like fever, chills, fatigue, headache, new or worsened muscle pain or swollen lymph nodes.²⁰⁸

Pfizer Unblinded Shot Trials, Vaccinated Placebo Participants

Although Pfizer says it plans to follow up clinical trial participants of all ages for two years, by March 2021 the company had unblinded the study and offered the COVID vaccine to placebo participants, which scientifically compromises evaluations and comparisons of long-term health problems in vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants.^209,210 The unblinding of a clinical trial while follow up of participants is ongoing has never been done before — it is unprecedented.²¹¹

In those Phase 2/3 trials, including a six-month follow-up trial,²¹² and from anecdotal experiences reported by those who have gotten the Pfizer vaccine,²¹³ it is obvious that the mRNA COVID vaccine is quite reactive.

The majority of vaccinated people, especially if they are younger and after receiving a second dose,²¹⁴ experience acute reactions like injection site pain, fever, headache, fatigue, swollen lymph glands and body discomfort sometimes severe enough to require a day or two of recovery, which can include needing to stay home from work.²¹⁵

One CDC official commented early on that, “People should be prepared to have pain” following vaccination, suggesting that pain is a sign that “It’s your body building an immune response to the protein that is mimicking the disease."²¹⁶

Other doctors point out that strong reaction symptoms like high fevers, chills, headache, joint and muscle aching, and disabling fatigue are evidence of an inflammatory response mounted by the innate immune system and that antibodies are later generated by the adaptive part of the immune system.^217,218 It has long been recognized that strong reactions to pharmaceutical products can be a reason to exercise caution, especially with repeat doses.^{219,220,221,222,223}

Blood, Cardiac and Brain Disorders After Pfizer COVID Shots

Since the Pfizer vaccine was released under an EUA, there have been serious blood, cardiac and brain disorders reported in the medical literature, and also by people who have received the vaccine.^{224,225,226,227}

Among the more serious are immune thrombocytopenic purpura,²²⁸ which causes internal bleeding because the immune system attacks platelets and the blood cannot clot; heart inflammation that can cause a variety of cardiac problems;²²⁹ and immune mediated inflammatory neurological disorders^230,231 like Guillain Barre Syndrome,²³² Bell’s Palsy²³³ and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis.^234,235

CDC officials have acknowledged only two major serious reactions related to Comirnaty vaccine: (1) anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction also known as shock that has symptoms like trouble breathing, swelling of the tongue and throat, hives and drop in blood pressure;^236,237 and (2) heart inflammation, which is commonly diagnosed as myocarditis or pericarditis with symptoms like chest pain, fast beating, fluttering or pounding heart and shortness of breath.²³⁸

Inflammation of the Heart Reported After Pfizer COVID Shots

Inflammation of the heart is not a trivial complication, whether it is caused by an infection or a vaccine. Myocarditis is inflammation of the cardiac muscle and is more often seen in infants and teenagers, but can occur at any age, especially after a viral infection.²³⁹

Myocarditis and pericarditis, which is inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart, are thought to be largely immune-mediated and in serious cases, can lead to heart rhythm disorders, heart damage, heart failure and death.

Every year, heart disease kills nearly 660,000 Americans — 1 in 4. It is the leading cause of death in the United States among men and women of all races, costing the nation $363 billion a year.²⁴⁰ Myocarditis is a known complication of smallpox vaccine²⁴¹ and has been reported after influenza vaccine²⁴² and now is being reported after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.^243,244

A controlled study using large national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs found that individuals who had acute COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of many types of cardiovascular problems, including myocarditis and pericarditis; heart rhythm disorders; heart failure; ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease that can cause stroke and thromboembolic disease, or deep vein thrombosis involving blood clots.²⁴⁵

Although researchers said the greatest risk for COVID-related heart inflammation was in unvaccinated persons, the myocarditis risks were increased even for vaccinated people who got COVID.

A descriptive study conducted by CDC researchers analyzed reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database from December 2020 to August 2021 and found that crude reporting rates of myocarditis within seven days of mRNA vaccinations were higher than expected across multiple age groups and in both women and men.²⁴⁶

The rates of myocarditis cases were highest after the second dose in adolescent males, with about 70 cases of myocarditis reported per million doses of the Pfizer COVID vaccine in 12 to 15 year old males and about 106 myocarditis cases per million doses in males 16 to 17 years old. Most myocarditis symptoms appeared to occur and resolve more quickly after vaccination than after viral illness.

Still, the researchers admitted that, “the risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are unclear.”

Blood Clotting and Blood Vessel Disorders After Shots

Blood clotting and blood vessel disorders have also been reported after receiving Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine. One self-controlled case series study looked at patient records of 29 million people vaccinated in England and hospitalized between December 2020 and April 2021.

Nine million patients in the health records database got the Pfizer vaccine and researchers discovered an increased risk for blood clotting and blood vessel disorders within 15 to 21 days of vaccination that can lead to death.²⁴⁷

The conclusion was that after receiving the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, there are increased risks for arterial thromboembolism, which is a blood clot in an artery that stops the flow of blood to an organ or another part of the body;²⁴⁸ and for ischemic stroke, which is when a blood clot cuts off blood supply to the brain and brain cells begin to die within minutes;²⁴⁹ and for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), which is when a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses and prevents blood from draining out of the brain.²⁵⁰

The researchers pointed out that these blood clotting and blood vessel disorders also are complications of SARS-CoV-2 infections and occur more frequently in seriously ill patients testing positive for COVID than after COVID vaccination.

Over 1 Million COVID Vaccine Reaction Reports Filed

As of February 4, 2022, there were over 1.1 million adverse event reports following COVID-19 vaccinations filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System known as VAERS that was created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.^{251,252,253,254}

COVID vaccine-related reaction reports represent more than 50 percent of the nearly two million total adverse event reports that have been made to VAERS for all federally recommended vaccines since the vaccine reaction reporting system became operational in 1990. It is estimated that only between one and 10% of vaccine adverse events that occur in the U.S. are reported to VAERS.^255,256

Using MedAlerts, an independent search engine for VAERS established in 2003, I conducted a search the first week in February 2022 and found that about 624,000 of the COVID vaccine adverse event reports were associated with the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine,²⁵⁷ including over 130,000 events categorized as “serious,”²⁵⁸ and about 15,500 deaths.^259,260

A portion of these reports have been filed by residents of other countries who have received the Pfizer COVID vaccine, and federal health officials warn that there is no proof of causation for any given vaccine adverse event report filed with VAERS.²⁶¹

If your doctor refuses to report a serious health problem following vaccination to VAERS that you or your child have suffered, go to NVIC.org to learn how you can report it yourself.

Strong Inflammatory Responses Associated With mRNA Shots

What is it about the Pfizer mRNA vaccine that makes it so reactive? Because the Comirnaty vaccine was fast-tracked to licensure and all animal and human clinical trial data have not been fully released to the public, there has been speculation about the potential biological mechanisms for vaccine induced inflammatory disorders affecting the heart vessels and brain and other parts of the body.

The main concern about the Comirnaty vaccine’s reactivity is centered on the fact it uses a new mRNA technology platform that pushes synthetic mRNA coated with lipid nanoparticles into the body’s cells to force cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This is the first mRNA vaccine injected into humans on a mass basis and the first one using a lipid nanoparticle delivery system.²⁶²

A search of the medical literature and mainstream media articles quickly reveals that two years before Pfizer and Moderna got an EUA to distribute their mRNA vaccines, academic researchers warned of potential safety issues with the platform, like local and systemic inflammation; stimulation of hyper-inflammatory immune responses causing chronic inflammation and autoimmunity;²⁶³ and the presence of extracellular RNA that may cause edema and the formation of blood clots.²⁶⁴

The lipid nanoparticles that coat the synthetic mRNA in COVID vaccines can be highly inflammatory, as one recent study in mice demonstrated.^265,266 This is the first human vaccine to include lipid nanoparticles and there are outstanding questions about biodistribution in the body and if they can accumulate in different organs of the body like the liver, spleen, lungs, kidneys and perhaps crosses the blood brain barrier.^{267,268,269,270,271}

There has been a debate about whether lipid nanoparticle coated mRNA that provokes cells to generate the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein ends up in the ovaries and could potentially affect fertility, with one of the inventors of mRNA technology and other scientists saying it could happen and other scientists saying it cannot.^272,273

At the same time there is an investigation going on in Europe about menstrual irregularities and spontaneous bleeding in menopausal women who have gotten mRNA vaccines.^274,275

There are also questions about antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),^276,277 which could make certain people who already have coronavirus antibodies because they got vaccinated or had a previous infection more susceptible to severe COVID disease if they are infected or re-infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Public health officials disagree that COVID vaccine can cause antibody dependent enhancement, maintaining that vaccinated people who get COVID have milder, not more severe, disease.²⁷⁸

Questions About Few Contraindications, Long Term Safety

There are questions about the almost total absence of contraindications, which means reasons not to give the Comirnaty vaccine, and recommendations to give another dose after a previous reaction.²⁷⁹ Then there is the lack of published evidence for the blanket recommendation that it is safe to give Comirnaty vaccine at the same time with all other government recommended vaccines.^280,281

At the end of the day, the biggest safety concern about Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine being given to children is that it just has not been studied long enough to determine if it will negatively affect the long term health of children.

Eminent scientists and doctors in the U.S. and around the world have been challenging official narratives about COVID and COVID-19 vaccines and asking all the right questions.^282,283 A U.S. senator has held panel discussions on Capitol Hill to give a voice to these scientists and to those who have been injured by COVID vaccines or have had their informed consent rights violated.²⁸⁴

Americans all across the country have been defending civil liberties and informed consent rights in many different kinds of public forums, even as they face censorship and abuse from those who are trying to silence the public conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.^285,286

Concern About COVID Vaccine Mandates for Infants and Children

In closing, it is important to remember that the COVID-19 vaccine is the 17th vaccine U.S. health officials now direct doctors to give to children as young as five years old.²⁸⁷ When the FDA gives Pfizer the green light to distribute Comirnaty to children younger than that, the vaccine will be given to six-month old babies.

After 40 years of monitoring the science, policy, law and ethics of vaccination, my greatest concern is that this new vaccine eventually will be mandated for all infants and children, just like almost all vaccines that industry has created in the past century have been mandated.

We are responsible for protecting our children from harm, our children, who are now the most chronically ill and disabled children in the history of our nation.

Two in five children between six and 17 years old suffer with some kind of inflammatory immune or brain disorder like asthma, diabetes and epilepsy,²⁸⁸ and 1 child in 6 is developmentally delayed,²⁸⁹ but there are no credible explanations coming from public health officials for why so many of our children are growing up sick and disabled and face a lifetime of chronic poor health.

Debate About Vaccination Is More Than 200 Years Old

Before the current public debate about COVID vaccine, there have been public debates about the wisdom of giving children many other vaccines that were very reactive. I joined with parents of DPT vaccine injured children to launch the modern vaccine safety and informed consent movement in 1982 because we wanted the toxic, highly inflammatory whole cell pertussis vaccine that had harmed our children taken off the market.^290,291

We followed mothers and fathers in the 19th century, who protested the reactivity of the smallpox vaccine.^292,293

Our activism in the late 20th century was followed by parents speaking out in the early 1990s about what happened to their children after being given the first genetically engineered vaccine for hepatitis B,^294,295,296 followed by young mothers and fathers in the early 21st century once again asking government, industry and the medical establishment to expand knowledge about vaccine side effects and who is at highest risk.^297,298,299

The charged debates about flawed vaccine science and the violation of the human rights inherent in mandatory vaccination laws have not changed in two hundred years. The fact that the debate about vaccination will not go away — no matter how much money and political power is thrown at it to make it go away — only confirms the universal need for it.

Moral and Legal Right to Make Voluntary Vaccination Decisions

As a mother, you have the moral right and must have the legal right to gather as much information as you can about COVID disease and the COVID vaccine, consult with a trusted health professional, and then follow your conscience and your gut instincts when making a decision about whether or not your child should get vaccinated — without being coerced or sanctioned by anyone for the decision you make.³⁰⁰

If you want to work in your state to protect your legal right to make a voluntary decision about vaccination, go to NVICAdvocacy.org and become a registered user of the free NVIC Advocacy Portal so you can stay informed about good or bad vaccine bills moving in your state and take action.

Last year, after NVIC worked with families across the country to successfully hold back state COVID vaccine mandates after the federal government issued strict vaccine mandates for both federal and private company employees, about 20 states passed laws in some way prohibiting COVID vaccine mandates or vaccine passports.

Not one state legislature passed a law mandating the COVID vaccine, even as Governors and local state officials in a few states enacted COVID vaccine mandates without getting legislature approval.³⁰¹

Sign up for NVIC’s texting service and get NVIC’s weekly journal newspaper — The Vaccine Reaction — in your email box to stay up to date on breaking news.³⁰² Read and download vaccine education information from NVIC.org and share it with your friends, family, legislators and thought leaders in your community.

Be the one who never has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health, your family, your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

from Articles https://ift.tt/n521ZIX
via IFTTT