The FDA's Infant COVID Vax Fraud

In the first five parts of my newsletter series on the FDA's scientifically fraudulent authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for "emergency use" in children aged six months to four years, I focused on how the FDA systematically deceived the public about the risks to children from COVID-19.

Then, in my last email on the topic, I explained how the FDA's decision was primarily based on an "immunobridging" analysis. Today, we'll dive deeper into the scientific fraud underlying this analysis. If you missed previous installments in this series, they are archived online here.

To briefly review, the "immunobridging" analysis involved a comparison of antibody levels in infants and toddlers to the antibody levels observed in older children for whom the vaccine had already been authorized or approved. The FDA assumed that an equivalent antibody titer in the younger children equated to immune protection against disease, even though the FDA knows that just because someone has a high level of antibodies does not mean that they are protected.

But that's just the start of the FDA's fraud in this regard. Even worse, the FDA considered only antibody measurements taken within one month since vaccination, thus willfully blinding itself to the rapid decline in antibodies that can be anticipated to occur based observations of all age groups for whom the vaccine had already been authorized or approved.

In addition, the FDA ignored repeated findings from observational studies of significantly negative vaccine effectiveness after several months of waning immunity.

Naturally, the FDA also ignored numerous confirmations in the literature that "original antigenic sin" is a real problem with these vaccines.

In my forthcoming major paper fully exposing the FDA's fraud, I'll review the details of numerous such studies. For now, rather than reviewing the data here, and in case you missed it, I'll just direct you to my previous article covering negative effectiveness and original antigenic sin: "'Original Antigenic Sin' Is a Real Problem with COVID-19 Vaccines".

As if all of that was not bad enough, another element of outright scientific fraud in the FDA's "immunobridging" analysis is the fact that the FDA only considered measurements of antibodies to the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2.

The FDA did that despite the fact that the original strain is now extinct outside of laboratories and despite knowing that these vaccines, which were designed to induce antibodies to the spike protein of the Wuhan strain, produce antibodies that are largely incapable of neutralizing the Omicron variant due to the mutations in its spike protein.

In fact, the FDA had data for this age group from Pfizer showing a four to six times lower level of neutralizing antibodies against Omicron as compared to the levels measured in the lab against the Wuhan strain.

Yet, for the purposes of authorization, the FDA completely ignored that data. The criteria for its immunobridging analysis were met solely based on neutralizing titers against the Wuhan strain.

If that is not scientific fraud, then I don't know what could possibly qualify. In sum, the FDA's "immunobridging" analysis:

falsely equated a high level of antibodies with immunity (as covered in more detail in my previous email on the topic);
ignored the known fact that vaccine-induced immunity rapidly wanes so that there is no significant effectiveness against Omicron within a matter of weeks since becoming fully vaccinated;
ignored repeated observations that thereafter vaccine effectiveness becomes significantly negative;
ignored numerous confirmations in the literature that original antigenic sin is a real problem with COVID-19 vaccines
falsely generalized the level of antibodies observed against the Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 as though vaccinated children would mount an equal response to the Omicron variant.

In the next installment, we'll take a look at how the FDA's emergency use authorization was predetermined by the Biden administration.