Dr. Naomi Wolf and her team are ambitiously organizing an effort to read through all the Pfizer documents. This morning Wolf may have misinterpreted some dosing information that she received.
And by vaccines you mean “vaccines”? These are not vaccines in any true sense of the word pre-2020. “1984” put a new meaning in it to cover gene “therapies” that don’t provide any immunity, don’t prevent, even enhance, the spread , kill and injure enormous number of people and turn negative efficacy in a few months for disease severity and death. Some vaccines!
Also, are you factoring in the total # of women vs. the total # of men who’ve gotten vaxxed? Traditionally, women are more likely to attend to their health (in this case, fall under the spell of BigPharma propaganda) than men, so the ratio may be explained by a higher percentage of women getting injected.
“It may also explain why the Covid vaccines appear to be all but useless, even in the very short term, for obese males.”
There definitely is disparity between the number of vaxxed men vs. women, but not nearly enough to account for the difference in reported adverse events. I have no idea whether one-size-fits-all dosing has anything to do with it. But neither do Pfizer or Moderna, based on their published data. The trials were grossly inadequate to answer this basic question.
There simply was no science to justify dosing these injections by age bracket.
Great and yep, my suspicion is it has more to do with political science and the need to make a case for injecting children so BigPharma gets carte blanche immunity in perpetuity.
Thank you for the Daily Clout link! An organized effort to evaluate the Pfizer documents is absolutely critical and well worth a donation.
To piggyback off the comment by "I am not your Other", we MUST be able to poke holes in the argument that the "vaccines" are safe using Pfizer's own data. I get ill hearing esteemed PhDs saying, "The other thing is safety -- safety has not been an issue. Safety has always been really great. It's really been the ability to get a really good robust antibody response." The "vaccines" are not safe, the antibody response wanes, and there is a whole lot more to immunity than just antibodies.
KIDS and Pfizer VACCINE TRIALS. Stanford got positive results for 2-doses in 6-23 months of age. And they are working on 3-doses for 2-4 year olds. They plan to submit to the FDA in April.
From Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's town hall on Feb 24, 2022. Hear Dr Bonnie Maldonado from Stanford. Starting at the 41 minute mark: https://vekeo.com/event/repannaeshoo-74550/
Doctor Maldonado: So, we started doing [Pfizer vaccine childrens'] trials here at Stanford; we're one of many sites around the country that are doing these trials. Because people in the Bay Area have been so eager to have their children [take] part [in the vaccine trials]. We have been enrolling a high number of families into the trial here. People have just been really wanting to participate, and it really does help us move the studies forward. We were able to get the 5 to 11 year old vaccines approved [under EUA] in November. We started the under 5 year old [Pfizer vaccine trials] before November, last summer. But really, we're focusing on the older kids just to get those finished and done. But the under 5 year olds are broken into two groups: 6 months to 23 months of age. And then 24 months to 4 years of age, so 2 to 4 [year olds]. The original study was a two-dose study because as we know, both of the mRNA vaccines are two doses. For the Pfizer trial, the doses were given three weeks apart. Well, it turns out that the antibody responses, well, the dose given to the under 5 year olds was a lower dose and so was the 5 to 11 year old relative to adults. The adult dose of the vaccine was thirty micrograms per dose. Now, for the 5 to 11 year olds, the dose was 1/3 of that or ten micrograms per dose, because the higher dose caused more immediate reactions, especially fevers. With the under 5 year olds, it turned out that even the ten microgram dose was also causing higher reactions especially fevers in the smaller children. So, the three micro microgram doses given. So that's one 1/10 of the adult dose. And with those trials, it turns out that in the 6 to 23 months old, the three micro doses worked very well and gave a good antibody response equivalent to the adult dose. Unfortunately, for the 2 to 4 year olds, that dose did not seem to give the same high level of antibody response. And now none of us have seen the data, because the studies are still blinded, so we don't know what that means. The responses were really pretty good, but not good enough, or whether they really are not great at all. So, we don't know and so because of that, [Pfizer] along with the FDA, discussed putting in a third dose and if we think about it, many of our vaccines for children require more than two or three doses anyway, so that's usually what we need to do to, especially for younger kids, to really boost that immune response. In the beginning of / middle of January, we were given approval by [Pfizer] and by the FDA to initiate a third dose study for the kids who had already been enrolled with the first two doses. So, we're almost done with that, and we hope that the data will be completed by March so that it can be submitted to the FDA by April. We think that by early April we should have a vaccine for the under 5 year olds. The other thing is safety -- safety has not been an issue. Safety has always been really great. It's really been the ability to get a really good robust antibody response.
Eshoo: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Well, we have to take care of our little angels and you've given us a good update on that.
This is the Stanford doctor speaking: https://med.stanford.edu/maldonadoepigroup/aboutus.htmlhttps://profiles.stanford.edu/yvonne-maldonado?tab=bio Dr. Yvonne (Bonnie) Maldonado is Professor and Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics at Stanford Medicine. She also directs Stanford's Global Child Health Program and serves as the Medical Director of Infection Prevention and Control at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford.
Thank you so much for sharing this. It's disheartening, of course, that the FDA is still proceeding full steam ahead with the jab for kids under five, but at least we know where things stand and that we have to keep working to wake people up to this travesty.
I think, because of the Feb 15 deadline passing, many think it is not still moving forward. I try to get the word out. Your articles help a lot, getting people writing, etc. thanks
what happened to howbadismydose.com? And the paper written by that smart individual who started combing through batch lots and adverse events...he or she needs to be credited with finding out that the doses were tested in order...
I believe you're talking about howbadismybatch.com, although that website is not working for me either right now, so I don't know what's going on with it. It's still an open question, in my view, as to whether bad batches have anything to do with all the adverse events.
Darby (or anyone!), can you explain how Moderna's 100 mcg shot is considered equivalent to Pfizer's 30 mcg shot? My husband unwisely got the first Moderna but promptly got COVID and decided not to get any more shots. But I worry because it seems like one Moderna shot has more of the active material than the two Pfizers plus the Pfizer booster.
The Moderna seems to be much stronger based on the dosing, so worse side effects and potentially greater antibody response. But I'm not aware of it lasting any longer than the Pfizer vax. If your husband has already had one dose plus Covid and seems okay, I'd count my blessings and quit while I was ahead.
Thanks for your response, Darby. He's actually had COVID twice, once in early Jan. 2021, right after getting the shot, and more recently in Dec. 2021. I caught it from him in December. He's a doctor and was able to get a religious exemption to taking the second shot. I just don't understand why Moderna isn't a one-dose regimen like J & J. You're considered fully vaccinated with only one dose of that, but people are getting third doses of Moderna! Inexplicable! Anyway, even though he doesn't get the benefit of being considered fully vaxxed, he's gotten a large amount of product in that one dose, and I worry about it.
So obese should get quadruple the dose? Or maybe no one should be injected with a bioweapon substance, period?
These vaccines should never have been given to anyone.
And by vaccines you mean “vaccines”? These are not vaccines in any true sense of the word pre-2020. “1984” put a new meaning in it to cover gene “therapies” that don’t provide any immunity, don’t prevent, even enhance, the spread , kill and injure enormous number of people and turn negative efficacy in a few months for disease severity and death. Some vaccines!
Very droll.
Perhaps they could volunteer to fight Rasputin...
Wow! That is an astute observation - Rasputin! Very droll!
That’s what I thought too. Moderna was always bigger dose than Pfizer. But none of the dosing makes sense which was Wolfe’s other point.
Great detective work, Darby! Did you let Naomi know? She’s on Substack:
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/
“may help explain why more than twice as many females as males are listed”:
Interesting, although I thought maybe it had to do with the lipid nanoparticles accumulating in the ovaries (https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/06/27/vaccine-causes-lipid-nanoparticles-to-accumulate-in-ovaries/).
Also, are you factoring in the total # of women vs. the total # of men who’ve gotten vaxxed? Traditionally, women are more likely to attend to their health (in this case, fall under the spell of BigPharma propaganda) than men, so the ratio may be explained by a higher percentage of women getting injected.
“It may also explain why the Covid vaccines appear to be all but useless, even in the very short term, for obese males.”
I thought this may be related to the spike protein targeting adipose tissue (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7264780/), although that wouldn’t explain the gender discrepancy.
I let Naomi know via her website.
There definitely is disparity between the number of vaxxed men vs. women, but not nearly enough to account for the difference in reported adverse events. I have no idea whether one-size-fits-all dosing has anything to do with it. But neither do Pfizer or Moderna, based on their published data. The trials were grossly inadequate to answer this basic question.
There simply was no science to justify dosing these injections by age bracket.
Great and yep, my suspicion is it has more to do with political science and the need to make a case for injecting children so BigPharma gets carte blanche immunity in perpetuity.
Thank you for the Daily Clout link! An organized effort to evaluate the Pfizer documents is absolutely critical and well worth a donation.
To piggyback off the comment by "I am not your Other", we MUST be able to poke holes in the argument that the "vaccines" are safe using Pfizer's own data. I get ill hearing esteemed PhDs saying, "The other thing is safety -- safety has not been an issue. Safety has always been really great. It's really been the ability to get a really good robust antibody response." The "vaccines" are not safe, the antibody response wanes, and there is a whole lot more to immunity than just antibodies.
My opinion of many PhDs, medical professionals and other "educated experts" is now lower than my opinion of the "instant expert" we encounter online.
I had a look here
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/pfizers-latest-data-release?s=w
and here
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/pfizer-admit-ivermectin-used-as-a?s=w
KIDS and Pfizer VACCINE TRIALS. Stanford got positive results for 2-doses in 6-23 months of age. And they are working on 3-doses for 2-4 year olds. They plan to submit to the FDA in April.
From Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's town hall on Feb 24, 2022. Hear Dr Bonnie Maldonado from Stanford. Starting at the 41 minute mark: https://vekeo.com/event/repannaeshoo-74550/
Doctor Maldonado: So, we started doing [Pfizer vaccine childrens'] trials here at Stanford; we're one of many sites around the country that are doing these trials. Because people in the Bay Area have been so eager to have their children [take] part [in the vaccine trials]. We have been enrolling a high number of families into the trial here. People have just been really wanting to participate, and it really does help us move the studies forward. We were able to get the 5 to 11 year old vaccines approved [under EUA] in November. We started the under 5 year old [Pfizer vaccine trials] before November, last summer. But really, we're focusing on the older kids just to get those finished and done. But the under 5 year olds are broken into two groups: 6 months to 23 months of age. And then 24 months to 4 years of age, so 2 to 4 [year olds]. The original study was a two-dose study because as we know, both of the mRNA vaccines are two doses. For the Pfizer trial, the doses were given three weeks apart. Well, it turns out that the antibody responses, well, the dose given to the under 5 year olds was a lower dose and so was the 5 to 11 year old relative to adults. The adult dose of the vaccine was thirty micrograms per dose. Now, for the 5 to 11 year olds, the dose was 1/3 of that or ten micrograms per dose, because the higher dose caused more immediate reactions, especially fevers. With the under 5 year olds, it turned out that even the ten microgram dose was also causing higher reactions especially fevers in the smaller children. So, the three micro microgram doses given. So that's one 1/10 of the adult dose. And with those trials, it turns out that in the 6 to 23 months old, the three micro doses worked very well and gave a good antibody response equivalent to the adult dose. Unfortunately, for the 2 to 4 year olds, that dose did not seem to give the same high level of antibody response. And now none of us have seen the data, because the studies are still blinded, so we don't know what that means. The responses were really pretty good, but not good enough, or whether they really are not great at all. So, we don't know and so because of that, [Pfizer] along with the FDA, discussed putting in a third dose and if we think about it, many of our vaccines for children require more than two or three doses anyway, so that's usually what we need to do to, especially for younger kids, to really boost that immune response. In the beginning of / middle of January, we were given approval by [Pfizer] and by the FDA to initiate a third dose study for the kids who had already been enrolled with the first two doses. So, we're almost done with that, and we hope that the data will be completed by March so that it can be submitted to the FDA by April. We think that by early April we should have a vaccine for the under 5 year olds. The other thing is safety -- safety has not been an issue. Safety has always been really great. It's really been the ability to get a really good robust antibody response.
Eshoo: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Well, we have to take care of our little angels and you've given us a good update on that.
This is the Stanford doctor speaking: https://med.stanford.edu/maldonadoepigroup/aboutus.html https://profiles.stanford.edu/yvonne-maldonado?tab=bio Dr. Yvonne (Bonnie) Maldonado is Professor and Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics at Stanford Medicine. She also directs Stanford's Global Child Health Program and serves as the Medical Director of Infection Prevention and Control at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford.
Thank you so much for sharing this. It's disheartening, of course, that the FDA is still proceeding full steam ahead with the jab for kids under five, but at least we know where things stand and that we have to keep working to wake people up to this travesty.
I think, because of the Feb 15 deadline passing, many think it is not still moving forward. I try to get the word out. Your articles help a lot, getting people writing, etc. thanks
She was featured in an article today…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-children-moderna-pfizer.html?referringSource=articleShare
what happened to howbadismydose.com? And the paper written by that smart individual who started combing through batch lots and adverse events...he or she needs to be credited with finding out that the doses were tested in order...
I believe you're talking about howbadismybatch.com, although that website is not working for me either right now, so I don't know what's going on with it. It's still an open question, in my view, as to whether bad batches have anything to do with all the adverse events.
https://howbad.info/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/dr-mike-yeadons-key-testimony-part-iii-the-hot-lots
I was mistaken by in a previous post. Dr Yeadon DID testify that in his opinion it is not a question of manufacture but intentionally distinct lots.
Wow, good question. That website going down is awfully suspect.
https://howbad.info/
😅
Darby (or anyone!), can you explain how Moderna's 100 mcg shot is considered equivalent to Pfizer's 30 mcg shot? My husband unwisely got the first Moderna but promptly got COVID and decided not to get any more shots. But I worry because it seems like one Moderna shot has more of the active material than the two Pfizers plus the Pfizer booster.
The Moderna seems to be much stronger based on the dosing, so worse side effects and potentially greater antibody response. But I'm not aware of it lasting any longer than the Pfizer vax. If your husband has already had one dose plus Covid and seems okay, I'd count my blessings and quit while I was ahead.
Thanks for your response, Darby. He's actually had COVID twice, once in early Jan. 2021, right after getting the shot, and more recently in Dec. 2021. I caught it from him in December. He's a doctor and was able to get a religious exemption to taking the second shot. I just don't understand why Moderna isn't a one-dose regimen like J & J. You're considered fully vaccinated with only one dose of that, but people are getting third doses of Moderna! Inexplicable! Anyway, even though he doesn't get the benefit of being considered fully vaxxed, he's gotten a large amount of product in that one dose, and I worry about it.
How's your husband feeling these days?
He's doing well, thank you! No problems so far from the vaccine.