FDA Is Considering Giving an EUA Vaccine to Children

4
131

The FDA is considering giving a EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) drug to children (5 to 11 years of age). A EUA is a not “approved” drug for children. Under a EUA, the drug is for emergency use only.

On October 14th, the White House had alerted governors to get ready to vaccinate children. Biden purchased 65 million doses for the effort. The drug was not even approved and might not be except under a EUA.

The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The committee will meet in an open session to discuss a request to amend Pfizer-BioNTech’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the administration of their COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to children 5 through 11 years of age.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT AND DETAILED INFORMATION 

Materials for this meeting will be available on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting’s main page.

The October 26th meeting will be live on YouTube:

 

MORE INFORMATION HERE.

INTERESTING ARTICLE OF ADVERSE EFFECTS


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
quadruple007
quadruple007
8 months ago

We need quick justice. If only someone could set up a website posting the pictures/names of all of these tyrants (governors, county commissioners, school board superintendents) along
with a synopsis of their tyrannical actions. Seems it could be done free of any risks of defamation accusations, simply stating the facts (for example, commissioner Smith voted to force employees to vaccinate with a drug still in experimental stages or lose employment). This would haunt these people for the rest of their lives…legally. Possibly deter these kinds of acts…

GuvGeek
GuvGeek
8 months ago

Why is there such a push to inoculate everyone before long term effects of a drug can be verified? What is the Government and Big Pharma Hiding? The Federal Government has clearly overstepped its Constitutional authority in trying to force an unproven drug on the People. When is the Congress and the Courts going to act on the behalf of the People? It is my understanding that to date, the “Shot” has resulted in more deaths in some groups of young people than the virus itself. Mandating the “Shot” for children is unwarranted and if children die, then Bureaucrats should be held accountable for murder. Mandating this “Shot” for children is just plan bad medicine not supported by scientific facts. Constantly we have seen the Traitor Joe Administration talking about Science, but the only science seems to be Political Science which is an Oxymoron. The Government should not have the ability to give any Company immunity against law suits for their produces, especially Drugs. There is a Long history in America of Drug Companies hiding research showing their drugs are defective. The concept that the Government could forcibly make you take a drug without an individual due process and the Government not be held accountable is unconscionable.

The Jacobson v. Massachusetts case was as overreaching as is any law requiring a vaccination. The Government is prevented from inflicting Group Punishment. In the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts the Smallpox vaccine was a true vaccine that protected the individual who took the vaccine to a level of nearly 100%. As bad as Smallpox is, forcing someone to take a vaccine is highly questionable when those who have taken the vaccine are effectively protected. People had the option to take the Smallpox vaccine and be effectively protected in the Public Square. The use of the Public Good argument is a ruse and violation of the 4th Amendment when it comes to forcing people to take a drug and to do other things. In America. People have individual rights. Forcing the Nation to take a drug “for protection” would be no different than forcing every US Citizen to own a gun for self protection. The 4th Amendment affirms the rights of people to be secure in their persons from Government intrusion. Since the Government is restricted from Group Punishment, the Government must review every case for forced medications individually and prove that a person is an “unreasonable” threat to the public to force the administering of a drug or some form of Quarantine. Every human is an individual and reacts to a drug differently including the possibility of death in many cases. Forcing people to take a one size fits all drug is in reality Group Punishment and thus Un-Constitutional. Not acknowledging Natural Immunity is a complete and irrational denial of science. If the Government is allowed to force anyone to take a drug without individual review by a Court, then what is protecting The People from being forced to take a drug that will likely kill a large segment of the US population if defective or questionable? Many people receiving Covid Shots have reported serious adverse effects to the shots according to the CDC. These adverse effects include Heart issues, Blood Clots and even Death, but the Government is still pushing a potentially deadly Shot and refusing to consider Natural Immunity.

The Executive Branch of the Government should have No Mandate Powers. Mandates should not carry any power of Law. Only the Congress should have the right to create Law and should not be allowed to delegate any of the power. The same should apply to the Courts. When the Courts makes a decision that modifies a law, instead of just striking the Law down in total, the appropriate legislative body should have to vote to acknowledge the change in Law. Legislatures should also be required to pass laws singularly instead of in large packages with hidden poison pills. The President should have line item veto power.

Greg
Greg
8 months ago
Reply to  GuvGeek

If a drug can be banned after 50 or 60 years of use because of related deaths around 2000 then I ask why hasn’t this vaccine already been banned with Tens of Thousands of deaths within less than a year. I took the drug Darvon, which didn’t relieve the headache, in the 60’s with no side effects yet the accumulation over all that time warranted it to be banned around 2010.

Considering that Barrett, and now Breyer, has refused to hear cases involving mandates I suspect SCOTUS will not strike down any mandates by States or Businesses. I’ll just bet there’s been enough fear propaganda that every Justice will accommodate such mandates as necessary to prevent their “own” demise. And I’ll expect them To Use Jacobson v. Mass. as a basis. I did question Kris Kobach on just that topic and He believed it wouldn’t stand, but the media has a greater power than he may realize.

Greg
Greg
8 months ago

What’s in all those contracts. Evidence for Another Billion dollar fine?

https://www.citizen.org/article/pfizers-power/#_ftn14