FDA Approves Pfizer Booster For 12-15 Yr Olds Using ‘Real World Data’ Not Clinical Trials

If we’re supposed to ‘believe the science’ … shouldn’t we be able to point to some?

We’re getting shiny new guidance from the FDA about jabs for kids. So it sure would be nice to know our ‘trusted experts’ are actually basing their recommendations about the health implications of something that is irrevocably introduced into our bodies has some actual foundation in, you know, science.

We’re supposed to treat this vaccine as a magical cure-all despite record numbers of COVID-infected people in the states and across the world. That’s a tough sell. even research stations in Antarctica — with all their stacked COVID safeguards — couldn’t dodge this bullet.

We’re also forbidden to discuss any potential negative effects of these vaccinations. They are simply waved out of existence by our media and social media overlords.

That would set up an interesting discussion with the Australian taxpayer, now currently on the hook for compensating a boatload of Australians who have been hospitalized with adverse effects. Australia To Pay Compensation For ‘Rare’ Adverse Reactions To ‘Safe And Effective’ COVID Vaccines

What is the latest FDA guidance about jabs for kids?

Get ready for that third jab, kids!

As it was, kids sixteen and older were eligible for the booster shot. Now our alphabet agencies are recommending that kids as young as 12 can get that top-up. They’ve also reduced the delay window between the original set of jabs and the booster to 5 months instead of 6.

There are nearly zero children in this age bracket facing any serious risks from Omicron. And ‘leaky’ vaccines do not stop the spread of a virus. Even the extreme precautions taken among the Antarctic research lab were enough to ‘stop the spread’.

So what, precisely, are these third jabs for children supposed to ACCOMPLISH? Authorities offer generalized platitudes about efficacy but haven’t really made clear arguments for why kids, in particular, would need them.

Changing standards and moving goalposts

Definitions of vaccines (and anti-vax, not to mention herd immunity and gain-of-function) continue to shift to suit the politics of the day. Why should we be surprised with changes in what kinds of scientific certainty are acceptable?

Ivermectin and HCQ are drugs that have been in use for decades. Their risk profiles are clearly known and generally considered no more dangerous than familiar over-the-counter pills like aspirin. They are also out-of-patent and dirt cheap. But you will notice that nobody conducted large-scale testing on the use of cheap treatments like HCQ or Ivermectin, in part because of a bogus and now retracted medical journal article in The Lancet denouncing them.

Related: Did Medical Journal Put Politics Ahead Of Science In Sketchy COVID Treatment Publishing?

The same people who told us we couldn’t rely on anecdotal reports on the successful use of Ivermectin in setting like Peruvian hospitals where health care workers took it proactively and managed to not get sick objected because this was not a double-blind study and could not be reliably acted upon as ‘science’.

We have a doctor who was fired from his job because he supported coronavirus vaccines for adults, but not for children because of *checks notes* his insisting that patients have ‘informed consent’.

Related: Against WHO Guidance, India Greenlights Emergency COVID Drug — Here’s What Happened

What scientific standards are the new recommendations based on?

This is a critical question because we are expected to trust THIS science as ‘valid’ while dismissing anecdotal information like the ‘Miracle in Mexico’ or the successes in India, or Joe Rogan’s ridiculously rapid recovery as merely anecdotal and therefore unreliable.

Surely they are pointing us to a double-blind study (the only kind they would have accepted in support of COVID therapeutics!) as evidence that the jab is a good thing, right?

Not exactly.

FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said in a statement the agency made its decision because a booster “may help provide better protection against both the delta and omicron variants,” especially as omicron is “slightly more resistant” to the vaccine-induced antibodies that help fend off infection. —SFGate

Just ‘slightly’ more? Hardly confidence-inspiring, what else did they say?

Real-world data from Israel tracked more than 6,300 12- to 15-year-olds who got a booster there at least five months after their second Pfizer dose and found no serious safety concerns, the FDA said.

Likewise, the FDA said even more data from Israel showed no problems with giving anyone eligible for a Pfizer booster that extra dose a month sooner than the six months that until now has been U.S. policy. —SFGate

So indirect information and meta-studies are suddenly enough to go on in a world that is insisting on evidence of vaccination up to whatever arbitrary limit you people are setting?

That’s a switch. That standard wasn’t good enough when offered meta-studies about some of therapeutic treatment options, no matter how extensive those studies were. But when it comes to vaccines and children double-blind studies are no longer a necessary standard, apparently.

Have we so quickly forgotten that Oxycontin was also FDA approved? Did that have any side-effects they failed to warn us about? Were they known right away, or did that take a while to surface?

If scientific alphabet agencies aren’t prone to making explicitly political decisions, how do we explain the WHO changing the Covid testing standard to a less sensitive criterion just one hour after Joe took office? Or the CDC taking their school mask and lockdown talking points directly from teachers’ unions which happens to be the biggest Democrat lobby group? How about the politics beating the science on those 6′ social distancing guidelines?

Even now, Fauci has changed his mind twice since Christmas about what rules people should follow about ‘rona quarantines. They were reduced right after Biden got a complaint from an airline CEO. Now he’s added a test after the 5th day because people were freaking out.

We’re giving a THIRD injection of the vaccine to people too young to receive some brands of approved over-the-counter medications to protect against a virus that has only been around for two years? And we think we can already confidently predict that there will be no unintended effects?

We close with the same question we opened with:

There are nearly zero children in this age bracket facing any serious risks from Omicron. And ‘leaky’ vaccines do not stop the spread of a virus. Even the extreme precautions taken among the Antarctic research lab were enough to ‘stop the spread’.

So what, precisely, are these third jabs for children supposed to ACCOMPLISH exactly?

*  *  *  *  *

Psalms of War: Prayers That Literally Kick Ass is a collection, from the book of Psalms, regarding how David rolled in prayer. I bet you haven’t heard these read, prayed, or sung in church against our formidable enemies — and therein lies the Church’s problem. We’re not using the spiritual weapons God gave us to waylay the powers of darkness. It might be time to dust them off and offer ‘em up if you’re truly concerned about the state of Christ’s Church and of our nation.

Also included in this book, Psalms of War, are reproductions of the author’s original art from his Biblical Badass Series of oil paintings.

This is a great gift for the prayer warriors. Real. Raw. Relevant.