COVID-19
There are no licensed COVID shots for kids under 12 – but CDC wants babies to get 3 Pfizer shots by 9 months
From LifeSiteNews
By and
“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”
Nine-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC’s updated guidance, issued August 30, states that children – as young as 6 months old – should get either two doses of the 2024-2025 Moderna vaccine or three doses of the 2024-2025 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
If getting the new Pfizer shot, the baby is supposed to receive the first dose at 6 months, the second dose three weeks later and the third dose at least eight weeks after the second dose – meaning, that by 9 months old, babies are supposed to have received three Pfizer shots.
If getting the latest Moderna shot, the CDC recommends babies get the first dose at age 6 months and the second dose a month later.
The latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 are unlicensed in the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted only emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccines.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “The earlier COVID shots have been proven unsafe and ineffective. Now we’re asked to believe that newer versions are miraculously safe and effective?”
“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”
As of July 28, 37,814 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the FDA and CDC.
Of those, 187 reports were for children and teens under 18. Nearly 13,000 reports listed the age as “unknown.”
VAERS analyst and expert Albert Benavides recently told The Defender he believes VAERS is “throttling” and underreporting deaths of all ages following COVID-19 vaccination.
Meanwhile, the CDC continues to tell the public that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective.”
CDC ‘absolutely misleading’ public on safety of EUA vaccines
Holland said the CDC is “absolutely misleading” the public by asserting that COVID-19 EUA vaccines are safe and effective because EUA vaccines are not held to the same safety or efficacy standards as licensed vaccines.
“By law,” she explained, “EUA products ‘may be effective,’ and they have not undergone the safety testing required to permit licensing.”
“This is one more horrific example of the CDC putting profits before people and acting as an unethical arm of Big Pharma’s marketing operation,” Holland added.
CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker agreed. “It is criminal that these untested vaccines are being recommended to infants and children, especially given the fraudulent tactics to market them to an unsuspecting public,” Hooker told The Defender.
There’s no licensed COVID vaccine for kids under 12
There are still no licensed COVID-19 vaccines available for children under 12, Hooker said – so all COVID-19 vaccines given to young kids are EUA products.
The FDA’s website on EUA for medical products states that EUA vaccines only have to meet the standard of “may be effective” as long as if, “based on the totality of the scientific evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective for the specified use.”
“The ‘may be effective’ standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the ‘effectiveness’ standard that FDA uses for product approvals,” the website states.
Before a vaccine can be fully licensed, the vaccine maker typically is required to conduct numerous clinical trials to demonstrate that the product is safe. However, the safety requirements for EUA are more flexible.
According to the FDA:
The amount and type(s) of safety information that FDA recommends be submitted as part of a request for an EUA will differ depending upon a number of factors, including whether the product is approved for another indication and, in the case of an unapproved product, the product’s stage of development.
Despite this, the first statement on the CDC’s “6 Things to Know about COVID-19 Vaccination for Children” says, “COVID-19 vaccination for children is safe.”
Risks outweigh benefits for kids
Hooker said the CDC’s actions are especially problematic as, historically, the meaning of “safe” has been interpreted by regulatory authorities as meaning that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks.
“With the risk to children of dying from a COVID-19 infection being statistically zero, it is unclear if there is any benefit,” he said.
Meanwhile, the CDC still claims that “while adverse reactions are rare, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known risks of COVID-19 and possible severe complications.”
Pfizer fact sheet more forthcoming about risks
For licensed vaccines, the CDC typically provides an official vaccine information statement (VIS) that describes the vaccine’s risks and potential benefits.
According to the CDC website, “Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent, or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines.”
However, for EUA COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC directs people to “fact sheets” – produced by the vaccine manufacturer, not the CDC, and authorized by the FDA – which detail the product’s risks and benefits.
There is no federal law requiring healthcare providers to share these fact sheets with patients, or parents of minors, before a COVID-19 vaccination.
“Pfizer’s own ‘fact sheet’ for its latest COVID-19 vaccine appears to give a more accurate picture [of the vaccine’s risks] than the CDC’s own websites,” Hooker said. “Shouldn’t the CDC be more a watchdog than Pfizer?”
For example, Pfizer’s fact sheet states, “A product authorized for emergency use has not undergone the same type of review by FDA as an FDA-approved product.”
The Pfizer fact sheet also acknowledges that its vaccine “may not protect everyone” and that reported side effects associated with the Pfizer vaccines include myocarditis and pericarditis.
Hooker pointed out that research has shown that vaccine-induced myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart, can be fatal.
He urged parents to “read between the lines” when assessing the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccination recommendation for babies and children.
“Most of all,” he added, “use common sense to decide if the CDC’s and the FDA’s logic is sound.”
This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
COVID-19
Judge denies Canadian gov’t request to take away Freedom Convoy leader’s truck
From LifeSiteNews
A judge ruled that the Ontario Court of Justice is already ‘satisfied’ with Chris Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be ‘disproportionate.’
A Canadian judge has dismissed a demand from Canadian government lawyers to seize Freedom Convoy leader Chris Barber’s “Big Red” semi-truck.
On Friday, Ontario Court of Justice Judge Heather Perkins-McVey denied the Crown’s application seeking to forfeit Barber’s truck.
She ruled that the court is already “satisfied” with Barber’s sentence and taking away his very livelihood would be “disproportionate.”
“This truck is my livelihood,” said Barber in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews.
“Trying to permanently seize it for peacefully protesting was wrong, and I’m relieved the court refused to allow that to happen,” he added.
Criminal defense lawyer Marwa Racha Younes was welcoming of the ruling as well, stating, “We find it was the right decision in the circumstances and are happy with the outcome.”
John Carpay, president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), said the decision is “good news for all Canadians who cherish their Charter freedom to assemble peacefully.”
READ: Freedom Convoy protester appeals after judge dismissed challenge to frozen bank accounts
“Asset forfeiture is an extraordinary power, and it must not be used to punish Canadians for participating in peaceful protest,” he added in the press release.
As reported recently by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government claimed that Barber’s truck is an “offence-related property” relating to his involvement in the 2022 protests against Canada’s COVID mandates.
At this time, the court ruling ends any forfeiture proceedings for the time being, however Barber will continue to try and appeal his criminal conviction and house arrest sentence.
Barber’s truck, a 2004 Kenworth long-haul he uses for business, was a focal point in the 2022 protests. He drove it to Ottawa, where it was parked for an extended period of time, but he complied when officials asked him to move it.
On October 7, 2025, after a long trial, Ontario Court Justice Perkins-McVey sentenced Barber and Tamara Lich, the other Freedom Convoy leader, to 18 months’ house arrest. They had been declared guilty of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest against COVID mandates, and as social media influencers.
Lich and Barber have filed appeals of their own against their house arrest sentences, arguing that the trial judge did not correctly apply the law on their mischief charges.
Government lawyers for the Crown have filed an appeal of the acquittals of Lich and Barber on intimidation charges.
The pair’s convictions came after a nearly two-year trial despite the nonviolent nature of the popular movement.
COVID-19
Freedom Convoy protester appeals after judge dismissed challenge to frozen bank accounts
From LifeSiteNews
Protestor Evan Blackman’s legal team argues Trudeau’s Emergencies Act-based bank account freezes were punitive state action tied directly to protest participation.
A Freedom Convoy protester whose bank accounts were frozen by the Canadian government says a judge erred after his ruling did not consider the fact that the funds were frozen under the Emergencies Act, as grounds for a stay of proceedings.
In a press release sent out earlier this week, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) said that Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman will challenge a court ruling in his criminal case via an appeal with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
“This case raises serious questions about how peaceful protest is treated in Canada and about the lasting consequences of the federal government’s unlawful use of the Emergencies Act,” noted constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury. “The freezing of protestors’ bank accounts was part of a coordinated effort to suppress dissent, and courts ought to be willing to scrutinize that conduct.”
Blackman was arrested on February 18, 2022, during the police crackdown on Freedom Convoy protests against COVID restrictions, which was authorized by the Emergencies Act (EA). The EA was put in place by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, which claimed the protests were violent, despite no evidence that this was the case.
Blackman’s three bank accounts with TD Bank were frozen due to his participation in the Freedom Convoy, following a directive ordered by Trudeau.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, in November of this year, Blackman was convicted at his retrial even though he had been acquitted at his original trial. In 2023, Blackman’s “mischief” and “obstructing police” charges were dismissed by a judge due to lack of evidence and the “poor memory of a cop regarding key details of the alleged criminal offences.”
His retrial resulted in Blackman getting a conditional discharge along with 12 months’ probation and 122 hours of community service, along with a $200 victim fine surcharge.
After this, Blackman’s application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed by the court. He had hoped to have his stay of proceedings, under section 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowed. However, the judge ruled that the freezing of his bank accounts was legally not related to his arrest, and because of this, the stay of proceedings lacked standing.
The JCCF disagreed with this ruling, noting, it “stands in contrast to a Federal Court decision finding that the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and violated Canadians’ Charter rights, including those targeted by the financial measures used against Freedom Convoy protestors.”
As of press time, a hearing date has not been scheduled.
In 2024, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley ruled that Trudeau was “not justified” in invoking the Emergencies Act.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s federal government enacted the EA in mid-February.
After the protesters were cleared out, which was achieved through the freezing of bank accounts of those involved without a court order as well as the physical removal and arrest of demonstrators, Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23, 2022.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex22 hours agoDeath by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
-
Daily Caller23 hours agoChinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
-
Great Reset1 day agoViral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
-
Automotive1 day agoPoliticians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Digital ID21 hours agoCanada releases new digital ID app for personal documents despite privacy concerns
-
Community18 hours agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Alberta24 hours agoSchools should go back to basics to mitigate effects of AI
-
Bruce Dowbiggin20 hours agoNFL Ice Bowls Turn Down The Thermostat on Climate Change Hysteria


