[brid autoplay=”true” video=”698512″ player=”23886″ title=”moderna%20looking%20good%206%20million%20doses” duration=”24″ description=”undefined” uploaddate=”2021-01-04″ thumbnailurl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/thumb/698512_t_1609803251.png” contentUrl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/sd/698512.mp4″]
Pfizer released the results of their nine-month study on COVID-vaccinated children ages five to eleven. According to the trial, the vaccine showed a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” in young children.
First, 2,268 children were chosen as Pfizer’s subjects. All were given two doses of 10 µg 21 days apart. This is a third of the amount given to children and adults over sixteen years old.
“The 10 µg dose was carefully selected as the preferred dose for safety, tolerability and immunogenicity in children 5 to 11 years of age,” Pfizer’s statement read.
Then, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Albert Bourla lauded the study’s success. “Over the past nine months, hundreds of millions of people ages 12 and older from around the world have received our COVID-19 vaccine. We are eager to extend the protection afforded by the vaccine to this younger population, subject to regulatory authorization, especially as we track the spread of the Delta variant and the substantial threat it poses to children,” Bourla said in the same statement. “Since July, pediatric cases of COVID-19 have risen by about 240% in the U.S. – underscoring the public health need for vaccination. These trial results provide a strong foundation for seeking authorization of our vaccine for children five to eleven years old, and we plan to submit them to the FDA and other regulators with urgency.”
However, this comes three days after the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s study on the vaccine’s effectiveness. As a result, the CDC reported the Pfizer vaccine is 5% less effective than Moderna’s. Yet, Pfizer is still 88% effective.
Next, the company anticipates to release the results of studies on children younger than five by the end of the year.
You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.
You may like
Prestigious Science Journals Confirm Censored Views: Masks at Best Don’t Reduce COVID Infection
Just The News reports that a prestigious science journal has confirmed what was highly censored among social media regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic: “the best-case scenario for one of the most common COVID-19 interventions may be that it has no measurable effect on infection.”
A systematic review of studies of mask mandates for children, published Saturday in the British Medical Journal‘s Archives of Disease in Childhood, found “no association” with infection or transmission in 16 of the 22 observational studies and “critical” or “serious” risk of bias in the six countervailing studies. It got the attention of Elon Musk, owner of X, formerly Twitter.
Emails turned over under public records requests show that National Institutes of Health officials were privately questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks and forthcoming vaccines just a month after then-NIH Director Francis Collins appeared to plot with colleagues to organize a “quick and devastating take down” of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration.
Self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher the more often people said they wore masks, according to a Norwegian study accepted for publication Nov. 13 in the Cambridge University Press journal Epidemiology and Infection.
An analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Nov. 20 suggests that “scientific censorship is often driven by scientists” and not just “authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance,” as popularly believed.
The paper, co-authored by dozens of scholars known for challenging orthodoxies in their fields, cited “self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups” as motives for censorious scientists.
Heterodox COVID scholarship may suffer hard-to-prove “camouflaged censorship” by way of “double standards” applied to such research, the paper states.
The findings cast further doubt on the practice of not only public health authorities but scientists themselves in demonizing science-based skepticism of the effectiveness of COVID interventions, particularly in relation to their potential medical, mental and social harms.
That’s now two major reviews in top journals (Cochrane and BMJ) revealing no benefit to public masking. At this point any mask mandate is essentially political, unscientific, and yes–cruel.
— Artur Adib (@r2r) December 4, 2023
“Masking recommendations appear to be entirely based on mechanistic and observational data,” they wrote, noting that a much broader systematic review of mask RCTs by the research collaborative Cochrane concluded masks make “little to no difference” against flu or COVID.
(Cochrane unilaterally reinterpreted the study to downplay its findings, over the authors’ objections, after facing media scrutiny.)
You may like
Israel6 days ago
As More Evidence Shows Hamas War Crimes, Biden Administration Continues to Gaslight Israel
Elections6 days ago
Videotapes from Jan. 6 Committee Witness Interviews Vanish
Israel5 days ago
Menorah lightings canceled around the world as towns remove Jewish symbols over Hamas war
National Security5 days ago
ISIS-Inspired Teen’s Sinister Plot Foiled: Lone Wolf Threat Neutralized in Las Vegas