Guy Hatchard: Dr. Clare Craig Exposing Pfizers Trial Documents

Dr. Clare Craig, a Consultant Pathologist, has researched the COVID epidemic. Her perspective as a pathologist is critical to understanding the problems with data collection.

In the following video, Dr. Craig takes a deep dive into the Pfizer trial documents, the results will shock you!

                                       Click image to view video

The following is an approximate transcription of the above video.

I’m Dr. Claire Craig. I’m a diagnostic pathologist, and I am co-chair at the heart group. And I wanted to take you through the evidence that Pfizer just presented to the FDA on the six months to four-year-old children.

There’s an awful lot about this trial that has shocked me and I think will shock you too.

The trial recruited 4526 children aged from six months to four years old. 3000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That is a huge number, two-thirds of them; why was there this drop-off?

That needs to be answered?

And without an answer to that, on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void. So what did the trial show?

Well, they defined severe COVID as children who had a slightly raised heart rate or a few more breaths per minute; there were six children aged two to four, who had severe COVID in the vaccine group, but only one in the placebo group.

So on that basis, the likelihood that this vaccine is actually causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that isn’t. There was actually one child who was hospitalised in this trial, they had a fever and a seizure. They had been vaccinated.

So now let’s turn to what they defined as any COVID. And what they did was to utterly twist the data. They vaccinated the children and waited three weeks after the first dose before the second one.

In that three-week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got COVID and only 13 in the placebo group, which worked out as a 30% increased chance of catching COVID in that three-week period if you were vaccinated. So they ignored that data.

And then there was an eight-week gap between the second dose and the third dose where again, children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arm. So they ignored that data.

There was then several weeks after the third dose, which they also ignored, which meant that in the end, they had ignored 97% of the COVID that occurred during the trial.

And they just looked at tiny numbers. So tiny. In the end, they were comparing three children in the vaccine arm who had COVID with seven and the placebo arm. And they said that this showed the vaccine was effective.

So they measured how many of these children actually managed to catch COVID, twice in the two month follow up period. And there were 12 children who had COVID twice and all but one of them were vaccinated mostly with three doses.

So you have to wonder what on earth they’re thinking when that the claim of reduction in COVID was only for children. And here we have 12 children who got COVID Twice 11 of them were vaccinated.

So let’s just recap. They recruited 4500 Children 3000 of them dropped out. And in the end, they’re claiming this vaccine works on the basis of three COVID cases versus seven, a difference of four children only.

And all of this against a backdrop of a disease which doesn’t affect children. And with no long term safety data, we have to ask how an ethics committee could have approved this trial in babies. Babies are not at risk from COVID.

And now we have Pfizer who are presenting this as evidence to the FDA in order to apply for an emergency use authorization. Emergency use authorization is meant for a situation where there’s a risk of serious injury or death.

Now children under five are not at risk of serious injury or death from COVID. In fact, in their own trial, they had to make up other ways of measuring the problem because there was no serious injury or death.

Now originally, these products were sold as actually also reducing transmission. Now it’ll be completely unethical to use young children as a human shield. But we now know that they don’t reduce transmission that who stopped claiming and they reduce transmission.

So that argument doesn’t apply either. Now, if we just turned to safety, what they did is they followed up the patients for six weeks before unblinding them and vaccinating them.

So the children who’d had a placebo, the control group, followed up for an average of six weeks and then given the vaccine, so that’s your safety control gone forever.

The fact that this trial existed at all is unbelievable. There are other issues in there, which I haven’t highlighted, but those are the key ones parents should be demanding that the decision makers explain themselves.

Dr Guy Hatchard is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, food testing and certification company. This article was first published HERE