North Carolina Physicians Criticize Study Backing Vaccinations for Children

By Matt McGregor
Matt McGregor
Matt McGregor
Matt McGregor covers news and features throughout the United States. Send him your story ideas:
July 6, 2022 Updated: July 6, 2022

A group of North Carolina physicians is criticizing the study used to back the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to grant emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines for 6-month to 4-year-old children.

“It was a weak and underpowered study that in no way proved the efficacy nor safety given the fact that two-thirds of the children that started the study did not complete the study for reasons that are unclear,” Dr. Kristin Strange, a pediatric member with the North Carolina Physicians for Freedom (NCPF), told The Epoch Times.

There was a negative efficacy between the first and second dose, where there was a 30 percent increase in COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to the placebo, Strange said.

“There was no improvement in clinical outcomes after the second dose, which then prompted an add-on third booster dose for these children,” Strange said. “Since 97 percent of children who contracted COVID-19 during the trial did so before the third dose was given—most of whom had mild symptoms—there were only a few COVID-19 cases to base their conclusions, which showed, in the end, a 70 percent efficacy in the vaccine group compared to the placebo; that efficacy decided on by only 10 total children.”

The only child hospitalized in the study, with COVID-19 infection, fever, and seizures; was from the vaccine group, Strange said.

Dr. Dianna Lightfoot, Dr. Weston Saunders, and Dr. Bose Ravenell—also with NCPF—complied a Q&A (pdf) after fielding concerns from parents about the child vaccinations from their research.

Epoch Times Photo
A father covers the face of his son as he receives a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in Balgowlah in Sydney, Australia, on Jan. 11, 2022. (Jenny Evans/Getty Images)

‘Eroded Trust’

Flawed and inconsistent testing methods used to justify the rapid push to vaccinate children for COVID-19 have bred wariness in parents, Strange said, creating even more problems.

“We are seeing a progressive rise in overall vaccine hesitance among families who are second-guessing the other established vaccines for their children due to the mistrust in our public health entities, including the FDA and the CDC, given how this COVID-19 vaccine rollout has gone thus far with the heavy-handedness of vaccine mandates and many people witnessing first hand very concerning side effects in themselves, family members, athletes, and their own children,” Strange said.

The eroded trust between the patient, physician, and family could take years, “if not decades,” to heal, Strange said.

The FDA and the CDC didn’t immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

‘Tremendous Risk’

Given that the vaccine was not properly vetted or verified for safety, and can’t actually prevent disease or transmission of the virus to others, injecting healthy children with a novel genetic vaccine that was rushed into development presents a “tremendous risk” that society can’t afford because it leaves children vulnerable to both short term and still yet unknown long-term side effects, Strange said.

“As pediatricians and medical practitioners, we will have no credibility with families and patients going forward with recommendations for current and future childhood vaccines and medical interventions if this vaccine roll-out—especially in children—continues on its current path,” Strange said. “This whole process may in fact result in a need for us to look more intently at our current vaccine schedule and to review the ongoing need for some of them, along with their timing according to the child’s risk of disease and verifying their safety.”

Epoch Times Photo
An 11-year-old boy is vaccinated as his brother looks on in support at the drive-through vaccination center at North Shore Events Centre in Auckland, New Zealand, on Jan. 17, 2022. (Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

There should also be a review of how those studies were conducted as well, Strange said.

“This includes making sure any adjuvants added, such as aluminum, are within acceptable ranges to be deemed safe for injecting into a mother carrying a developing baby as well as a young infant with rapid brain and body development in those critical first years of life,” Strange said.

‘Medical Freedom’

To raise any of these concerns, however, brings judgment from medical boards, Strange said, which has removed the medical sovereignty of both patient and physician.

“Not only do patients and parents want medical freedom to make their own health care decisions for themselves and their children, but we must also preserve the medical freedom that physicians and medical practitioners have had with regards to making patient-specific recommendations without fear of reprisal or threat of our medical licensure by our medical and specialty boards,” Strange said.