Dr. Robert Califf, FDA commissioner, are you that inept? Your entire FDA full of thousands of scientists could not tell you the study you cited was WRONG? Garbage science, graphs etc.? NATURE? Et tu?
NATURE journal also published the abstract study that was basically academic malpractice, just laughable, the famous NATURE? You mean HARVARD & its academic rot is emblematic across the board?
Califf as FDA commissioner should know that it is prohibited for anyone let alone those involved in the making of the drug or vaccine or any health official or manufacturer, to make any health claims, you cannot state something is safe and effective if it is under investigational status. It is actually FDA rules that he should know. He violates his own rules. These vaccines remain under EUA so no one can claim safe and effective for that has not been established yet via BLA and FDA review.
Study of interest is here:
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/Supplement_2/ofad500.2466/7448254?login=false
Look at the title, look at the age groups and look at the Yousaf et al. study. It is of COVID mRNA Vaccination in U.S. Children Aged 5-17 Years, yet the graphs Figures 1, 2, & 3, are older persons and the treatment is not vaccines, but PAXLOVID, Pfizer’s failed rebund COVID anti-viral. No where in the methods is Paxlovid mentioned.
This is so confusing and laughable that this would be published. It makes no sense.
Title:
Methods:
‘A multi-site cohort of children enrolled 7/21/2021-9/1/2022 underwent weekly SARS-CoV-2 screening tests and were surveyed via self- or parental report 12/1/2022-5/31/2023 regarding PCC (defined as ≥1 new or on-going symptoms lasting ≥ 1 month after infection). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate the occurrence of PCC by vaccination status among children aged 5–17 years whose first PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in-study with Omicron variant, who completed the survey >60 days from infection, and who were vaccine age-eligible at time of infection per ACIP recommendations. Vaccination status was categorized as vaccinated (at least primary series completed >14 days before infection) and unvaccinated (no vaccine doses before infection). Vaccination status was verified through vaccine registry and/or medical records.’
See Califf:
Yet in the study in this paper above, children are not randomly assigned to get vaccine or not and still it is the wrong age groups and intervention, and this is Paxlovid and not vaccine. This is observational study and thus confounded with residual confounding. The power of randomization once sample numbers are large, is to spread out the effects of potentially distorting variables among intervetion arms. This published study is not suitable and of trustworthy quality. This is very poor research methods.
Then NATURE published the same study? Did Ms. Hall not read the paper? Did NATURE not vet this? Bottom line, this study is non-randomized and fraught with confounding. This is very questionable and it is incredible the FDA commissioner can make this mistake. It is even more incredible that NATURE can publish this.
Dr. Prasad covered this also and I wanted to share his good substack:
Criminal corruption…not ineptitude.
The FDA has been a thoroughly corrupt agency for over 70 years. Califf knows the truth, but he sold his soul to Pharma and the Rockefeller Foundation - as have most FDA officials over the years.
So of course he and the FDA continue their lies that deadly mRNA products are "safe and effective." They won't admit their corruption and criminality.
Dr. Herbert Ley's statement is even more true today than it was in 1968: “People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. The FDA protects the big drug companies, and is subsequently rewarded. Using the government’s police powers, they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. What the FDA is doing, and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.”