Horowitz: Moderna pushing high-dose shot for babies who are in no danger from COVID

Would red-state governors tolerate a federally funded program to distribute abortifacients in their states? Well, these same governors need to make it clear that Pfizer and Moderna are the new Planned Parenthood and are not welcome to distribute their poison shots in their states, especially for babies.

The pandemic has basically been declared over, babies and toddlers were never in danger, the shots no longer work, and they have been proven devastating in adverse events, even with the amount of long-term consequences we see. Yet both Pfizer and Moderna are in the process of senselessly and cruelly targeting the youngest children for the COVID shots. However, there is something particularly concerning about Moderna’s shot, in that the company is proposing to use a 25-milligram dose on babies 6 months to 2 years old, more than eight times the dose of Pfizer’s baby shot!

We are talking about kids weighing 15-25 pounds, and they are giving a dose that is almost as big as Pfizer’s adult dose. It’s one-fourth the dosage of Moderna’s adult dose, but that is still a much greater concentration for an average 6-month baby than it is for an adult of 160 pounds. How could anyone think this is safe?

Here’s what is really going on. All of the Pfizer and Moderna studies even for older children have shown zero serious COVID cases in the respective placebo groups. So in order to show efficacy, they created arbitrary benchmarks for presence of specific antibody levels generated by the shots. Putting aside the fact that high antibody levels without the proper T cell responses are actually not a good thing, fail to provide sterilizing immunity, and potentially cause autoimmune problems, the drug companies are caught in a catch-22 with dosage. Pfizer rightly tested those under 5 years old with a 3-milligram dose. But then it failed to stimulate a proper antibody response, which is why the company had to temporarily withdraw its application for EUA.

Moderna, on the other hand, figured they’d solve the problem by giving babies and toddlers a whopping 25-milligram dose. Even then, they misleadingly tethered their study of 2- to 4-year-olds to 5- and 6-year-olds in order to even register this illusory efficacy. However, any sane person on the FDA advisory committee should automatically nix this shot on account of its dangerous concentration for babies who, at just 6 months, average (for girls) as light as 16 pounds. Thus, while a 20-year-old adult weighing 180 pounds could be getting 0.55 micrograms per pound with the 100-microgram dose, a 6-month-old baby could be getting more than 1.5 micrograms per pound, roughly three times as potent. And we already know how problematic the adult concentration of Moderna was for many young adults, especially related to cardiac issues.

Then again, the entire premise of approving this shot at any dose for babies is taking a chapter out of Josef Mengele’s book of human experiments. By definition, there is zero emergency now, and even at the peak of the pandemic, there was no emergency for young children. There was, by definition, zero efficacy against serious illness, and they claim 37%-43% efficacy against infection for the various age groups. However, what are the consequences of getting an infection if it’s not serious? They report 17% of the kids got fever from the shots! So you are giving them fever and something that can induce several thousand ailments and maladies long-term (with no long-term safety data) for the 40% chance of … avoiding fever from the virus!

Also, the FDA plainly stated (p. 10) that “a point estimate for a placebo controlled efficacy trial of at least 50%” must be demonstrated in the trial in order to receive emergency use authorization. Moderna’s own untransparent data demonstrates the shot has not met the threshold for consideration

But that’s assuming you believe the 40% efficacy the way you believed the 90%+ efficacy against the original strain in the first adult studies. Now, if you believe there is still even a 40% VE rate against Omicron, especially against infection, after every single country-based analysis of real-world data showed negative efficacy since the beginning of Omicron (and U.K. data showed it even in Delta), I have a biolab to sell you in Wuhan. According to the U.K. Health Security Agency’s most recent report, efficacy against infection for some age groups is now lower than -300%.

But let’s play Charlie Brown in the football game with Lucy for a moment and assume that this time, they are telling the truth about 37%-43% efficacy against infection. Even the most conservative estimates of the adverse events from thousands of maladies detailed in Pfizer’s own document now released via FOIA demonstrate how it is immoral to market this to any child. Moderna has failed to disclose the number and types of adverse events. What it did divulge, however, is concerning. “The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate and were more frequently reported after dose two,” read the press release. The majority were mild or moderate, which means that a good number of them could have been significant. It also means that a minority but still measurable number of the adverse events were severe. How many and what type? They don’t say.

Remember how a number of countries banned Moderna’s shot for those under 30 because it caused exponentially more myocarditis than even Pfizer, presumably because of the higher dose? Iceland completely banned it. And this is when the shot was alleged to be more effective and for older strains of the virus. Now, they are using an expired shot for babies at a massive dose – much greater per pound – knowing the cardiac issues. Moreover, Moderna has been even less transparent than Pfizer, so we don’t even have its list of known adverse events the company is undoubtedly quietly monitoring. This is no longer malpractice but downright Third Reich-level malfeasance.