Ezra Levant examines Pfizer’s FDA submission revealing uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine risks like myocarditis in children aged 5–12, citing extrapolated data and a five-year follow-up study. The company predicts 33,600 prevented cases but 21 myocarditis cases per million second doses, with efficacy claims dismissed as outdated. Canadian politicians—John Tory, Justin Trudeau—promote vaccination without risk transparency, while Pfizer funds media like This Week. With Toronto’s ICU at four patients, Levant questions the urgency, linking Trudeau’s policies to authoritarianism: suspended parliament, media restrictions, and undemocratic mandates like bilingual labor codes. Mainstream journalists’ silence fuels concerns about democratic erosion. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I read to you a full page, not skipping a single word, of a Pfizer report filed with the FDA.
That's the drug regulator in America.
So I'm not reading what their critics say.
I'm not reading what a right-wing or a left-wing politician says.
I am reading what Pfizer has to say for themselves.
And you will be shocked, but not surprised.
That's in today's show.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to the video version of this podcast.
Go to RevelNewsPlus.com.
It's eight bucks a month.
You know, that's half the price of Netflix, and I think you get more interesting content.
Listen, I have a Netflix, so I like to watch a good escapist movie these days.
But I think you've got to see the facts of the crisis we're living.
I think Rebel News is one of the few places you can get those.
Just go to RevelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, and there you have it.
And we depend on that, you know, because we don't take any dough from Justin Trudeau.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, Pfizer says it just doesn't know if its drugs will harm young children.
I'll read you from their official FDA submission.
It's November 25th, and this is the Ezra Levance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
There's John Tory, the mayor of Toronto, posing with a children's character because he's trying to market two children as young as five to push the Pfizer vaccine on them.
Advertising to children is heavily regulated in Canada.
So is advertising pharmaceuticals to anyone, but that only applies if you're a drug company like Pfizer.
But politicians shilling for drug companies, they're a-okay.
It can be nuts.
Here's a CNN story that literally claims vaccines will reduce every cause of death.
How does that work?
People vaccinated against COVID-19 less likely to die from any cause, study finds.
Yeah, not so sure your math ads up there.
I mean, we're all going to die from something.
There's a 100% certainty we're going to die from something, from one thing or another.
But that's CNN, the most trusted name in news.
Just ask them or ask any other corporate media.
This week with George Stephanopoulos is brought to you by Pfizer.
This weather report brought to you by Pfizer.
Today's countdown to the royal wedding is brought to you by Pfizer.
And now a CBS Sports Update brought to you by Pfizer.
Meet the Press data download.
Brought to you by Pfizer.
By the way, kids are not immune to COVID-19, but it's almost as if they are.
It's so rare for them to get sick from the virus.
Even rarer for them to get seriously sick.
And children of tender years are more likely to be struck by lightning than to die from COVID-19.
That's not a figure of speech.
That is a statistical fact.
Even though John Torrey won't stop selling pharmaceuticals, the city's own website tells a different story, thankfully.
Here it is.
There are a grand total of 18 people in the entire city of Toronto in the hospital.
It's a mighty city.
What, six and a half million people in the greater Toronto area?
18 of them in the hospital for COVID-19.
There's more than 40 hospitals in the city.
Literally four people are in intensive care for COVID-19.
So I guess they have like tens of hospitals each.
That's not a pandemic anymore, people.
But back to the kids.
The mayor wants the kids to be vaxed.
So does every other politician in the country.
I think it's to please Pfizer shareholders.
I think it's to maintain the psychology of fear.
I think it's to keep the pressure on citizens even as the facts recede, as I just told you from Toronto Hospitals.
I think it's to remove the control group.
By that, I mean, we don't really know what these mRNA vaccines are going to do to people 5, 10, 25 years from now.
We just don't know to new technology.
We know that they don't stop people from getting sick as we thought they might.
They don't stop people from passing on the virus or even dying.
Even Anthony Fauci has admitted that now.
So they're not as effective as promised.
But what about the side effects?
How can we know how this will affect young children when they grow up?
I mean, if you give an injection to a five-year-old, I don't know, will it affect their reproductive systems?
I don't know.
You really won't know for 20 years, will you?
But let me read to you from Pfizer's own report submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the FDA.
You can see it for yourself online.
It's called Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, October 26, 2021, meeting document.
So this is filed by Pfizer to the FDA.
You can find it online.
Let me show you page 11.
I'm going to read the whole thing to you.
Let's read it together slowly.
Overall risk-benefit conclusions, COVID-19 continues to be a serious and potentially fatal or life-threatening infection for children.
And there is a significant unmet medical need in the 5 to 12 years of age population.
I simply disagree with that, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion, what serious is or whatever.
I'll read some more.
And by the way, BNT162B2 is just the technical name of the Pfizer vaccine, so don't be confused by that.
Two primary doses of the 10 microgram BNT162B2 vaccine given three weeks apart in 5 to 12 year olds, 12 years of age, have shown a favorable safety and tolerability profile, robust immune responses against all variants of concern, and high VE against symptomatic COVID-19 in a period where the Delta variant was predominant.
The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination.
Hang on, hang on.
You just said it was safe.
You said it has favorable safety.
You just said that.
And in the very next sentence, the next sentence, you said your test was actually too small to know.
There weren't enough people you tested it on yet.
You haven't done the tests yet.
But you want every child in the world to take this shot?
I guess they're part of your test now, eh?
I'll read some more.
Long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccine in participants 5 to 12 years of age will be studied in five post-authorization safety studies, including a five-year follow-up study to evaluate long-term sequelae of post-vaccination, myocarditis, and pericarditis.
Got it.
So you're starting five-year-long follow-up studies.
You're starting them now.
They'll be ready in five years.
But you're prescribing the drug to children.
Now, not even prescribing it.
Doctors don't get the prescription.
You're just giving it to every child.
No prescription needed.
I'll read more.
Israeli safety surveillance databases suggest that incidence rates of rare post-vaccination myocarditis peaks in individuals 16 to 19 years of age, males, and declines in adolescents 12 to 15 years of age.
In addition, the dose for children 5 to 12 years of age is one-third the dose given to older vaccines, 10 micrograms versus 30 micrograms.
Based on this information, it is reasonable to predict that post-vaccine myocarditis rates are likely to be even lower in 5 to 12 years of age than those observed in adolescents 12 to 15 years of age.
Is your head spinning?
Did you know that the most dangerous age for myocarditis from these vaccines was 16 and 19 year olds?
Did anyone in Canada ever tell you that?
Did you know that?
Pfizer knows that, and the FDA knows that.
Do you think John Torrey knows that, or Justin Trudeau, or the bureaucrats who jab children?
Do you think they warn anybody?
Not just the babies, but 16 and 19-year-olds.
Did anyone tell them?
But did you catch the second part of that?
They're just guessing based on the teenagers in Israel.
They're saying, okay, we know that 16 to 19-year-old teenagers are the worst hit by myocarditis.
That's heart inflammation.
So they're making a reasonable prediction.
That's the language they use, that younger kids will be just fine.
So they haven't tested it yet.
They said they don't have enough human guinea pigs yet.
They literally did not test it yet.
It's going to take five years, they say, but for now, they think it's reasonable.
It's a reasonable guess.
It's a guesstimate.
That's what they said.
I'll read more.
Given post-authorization experience and assuming 90% efficacy as shown in the descriptive clinical study, the estimated number of COVID-19 cases and associated hospitalizations presented over 120 days per million of fully vaccinated children 5 to 12 years of age is 33,600 and 170 respectively.
Okay, so they're trying to predict how many children this vaccine will help.
And the first point is not many.
Literally, if you injected a million children, if you inject every young child in the country in that age group, you'll save 170 kids from going to hospital.
That's it.
That's it.
Because they don't get that sick to begin with.
But did you notice that's based on what they claim is a 90% effectiveness rate?
But we know that's not true.
They don't have a 90% effectiveness rate.
That's outdated.
It's less than that.
Here's Bill Gates complaining about their lack of effectiveness himself.
You know, we didn't have vaccines that block transmission.
We got vaccines that helped you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.
We need a new way of doing the vaccine.
So they're claiming that if you jab 1 million children, you'll save 170 of them from going to the hospital.
But look at this.
In contrast, the number of post-vaccination myocarditis cases, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and myopericarditis, expected in the same period of time per million second doses is 21, assuming that children 5 to 12 years of age experience the same rates of post-vaccination myocarditis as adolescents 12 to 15 years of age in the U.S., Section 4.
So they're saying, here's the deal.
Keep 170 kids out of hospital and give 21 kids heart disease.
We therefore may expect substantially fewer post-vaccination myocarditis cases among 5 to 12 of age males and females in COVID-19 associated hospitalizations given current age-specific COVID-19 cases and hospitalization rate estimates.
Again, they don't know, do they?
Because they haven't tested it yet.
They say they may expect this because they don't know they haven't tested it yet.
Prevention and potential long-term sequel of COVID-19 illnesses as well as other societal impacts would further increase the public health benefit of vaccination.
Given all the above, the benefits of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to prevent COVID-19, given as a two-dose, 10 microgram dose level, primary series in children five to 12 years of age, outweigh the known or potential risks.
No, Potential risks?
Why Liberals Claim a Mandate00:10:42
No, no, no.
You just said what you guess, if we do say ourselves.
But they haven't tested it yet.
They're going to be testing it for five more years.
They're just making reasonable guesses now.
Reasonable for your child, really?
Or reasonable for their shareholders.
This is what they have disclosed.
Not just disclosed, they positively filed this with the FDA, with the government.
Now, imagine what they're hiding, what they're going to court in the United States to claim they don't have to disclose for 50 more years.
Stay with us for more.
One of my favorite things to do is to check in with one of Canada's most seasoned conservative columnists.
He's seen so many things.
In fact, he started his career, if you believe it, many decades ago as a liberal.
So he has been inside that beast.
But of course, he's Edmonton's leading conservative columnist.
I refer, of course, to Lauren Gunter with the Edmonton Sun newspaper, who joins us now via Skype.
Lauren, great to see you.
I have in front of me your, and I hope you don't mind my introduction, but I think the fact that you worked within the liberals, I don't say that as an insult, the opposite.
No, no.
You know how the creature thinks.
You know how the animal of the Liberal Party, which is a very survival-oriented animal, you know how it thinks.
And so I appreciate columns like this.
Let me just read the headline of this.
Liberals don't have a mandate to do much of anything.
And you talk about their throne speech and how they've got big plans, but how they really had one of the smallest election results in history.
I want you to put your thesis forward, and then I want to throw a slightly different way of looking at it at you.
But tell me, sum up this great column for us in a minute, if you please.
Well, you know, as I started off by saying in the column, I am going to mention every time they get up and talk about the mandate that they have for this massive change or that massive spending or, you know, turning Canadian society upside down, expanding the role of government.
I'm going to mention that they received the lowest percentage of the popular vote of any government in the history of Canada.
So in more than 150 years, there's never been a government that has had fewer, a lower percentage of the popular vote than the current Trudeau government.
They have a mandate for nothing.
And, you know, they went to the people, as you well remember, in the summer and said, no, we must have this election.
Most important time since the end of the Second World War.
We need to settle all of these huge issues.
And not one thing was changed by the election.
The results didn't change a thing.
So I don't understand what it is that they think they have Canadians' permission for.
Yeah.
Well, I think that's an excellent way of looking at it, is how weak their mandate is, how pointless the election was, other than, you know, they saw an opportunistic moment and they took it.
But I want to read two quotes from your column.
And this is of Mark Holland, who's the government house leader, which, if I understand that position, his job is to take the prime minister's priorities and move it through parliament.
So, you know, there's the whip whose job is to make sure everyone is following the party line.
The house leader is okay.
How do we marshal parliament to get these bills passed?
Is that an accurate job description of that?
That's exactly what he does.
And the whip works for the house leader.
Okay.
So here's what Mark Holland, the liberal house leader, has to say.
He says, I am not looking to tolerate, I love that word, to tolerate a lot of obfuscation or political games.
We've already had significant debate on these issues, both in and out of the chamber.
Now, there's a Jewish word, chutzpah.
You got to say the ch, Lorne, which is sometimes tough.
Chutzpah means outrageous audacity, outlandish, over-the-top presumptuousness, like the story of the killer who murders his parents and then asks the court to go easy on him because he's an orphan.
That's an order.
Chutzpah.
Here's a guy who gets the lowest mandate of any government in history, and he's saying, I'm not looking to tolerate anyone disagreeing with me.
I'm the boss, and we're not going to tolerate anyone asking questions.
That's the new definition of chutzpah, Lorn.
Yeah, I think so.
And I think that's an excellent point to make as well.
And that here are the liberals who came in with this very low mandate, no mandate to do what they were doing before the election.
And now they're saying, yes, we talked about all this before the election.
Don't bother us with the details.
Don't stand up in the House of Commons and say you disagree with our internet censorship or with extending the pandemic benefits or with expanding the government by about 40% over pre-pandemic levels.
Don't come in and try and stop our changes to the labor code that will make all federally regulated businesses subject to having bilingual workplaces, even if they're in Merit BC or an anti-conish Nova Scotia.
It doesn't matter.
We talked about these things before the election.
We also talked about them during the election, which I would dispute because I don't think they talked about much of substance during the election.
I think they mostly just slung insults at the Tories.
But nonetheless, they said we've talked about these in the last parliament.
We talked about them during the election.
We have 20 sitting days between now and they're down to 18 now, but they have 18 sitting days between now and Christmas.
Pass all of this stuff.
You must pass all of this stuff without debate because we said you should.
And that kind of disregard for democratic traditions.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine what the liberals would be doing?
They would be screaming and wringing their hands and they would be gagging if Harper had ever done anything like that.
Oh, I remember getting into a discussion with a liberal right after the 2015 election.
And this will give you an idea of how unbalanced their thinking is.
After the 2015 election, where Harper lost to Trudeau, I got in a discussion with a liberal in Vancouver who said, oh, thank God we got rid of that dictator, Harper.
Well, if he was a dictator, how come he held a free election?
Like, how did you win an election if the man was a dictator?
But that is how unhinged they are.
And they're unhinged now.
You know, we don't need any more debate because we've already talked about this a lot.
So you should just do what we tell you to.
Well, and here's the darker part.
I mean, your essay is, folks, they don't have a mandate.
They just don't.
My first point was that's typical liberal audacity to claim they have a mandate, an impatient mandate, even though they have the lowest result in history.
But let me look at it from a darker point of view.
For two years now, we have not had a fully functioning parliament.
Most of the health orders that have governed our lives far beyond the scope of health have not been debated, are not in legislation.
They're done either at the cabinet level, just written by the cabinet minister staff, or even worse, by public health officers who are not even part of cabinet, who have like been delegated this power down the chain of command.
So we have a very weak parliamentary democracy right now.
Parliament has not sat as much as it ought to.
There are restrictions on who even can go into the building.
I believe the media has become more complacent than ever.
They're cheerleading on the key issues of the day.
I see that some media companies are positively cheering for this internet censorship.
I ascribe that to the media bailout.
So that's the dark context here.
You have, I think, a civil liberties crisis in Canada, a parliamentary democracy crisis.
No court has stood up to anything in the last two years.
The law professors who wouldn't stop assailing Stephen Harper on everything, including Omar Cotter, for example, they're silent now.
The Civil Liberties Associations are silent.
And in that backdrop of increasing authoritarianism, now you have a guy saying, I will not tolerate that word.
I will not tolerate debate in the House of Debate as I bring in a censorship bill.
You should have more debate than ever on a censorship bill.
You should have more debate than ever in a minority government.
But he's saying, Lauren, as he brings in rules to reduce democracy even further, he will not tolerate debate.
That's a darker way of looking at it.
What do you think?
Yeah, it is.
And, you know, even when the Brits were in the midst of their worst peak in the pandemic, and it was much worse than anything we ever had in Canada, even when they were at the middle of their peak, they never suspended in-person sitting of the British Parliament because it was considered too core to the functioning of democracy to do it all by Skype.
So they never did that.
And these guys wouldn't allow it back.
You know, I think we're somewhere in between what I'm saying and what you're suggesting.
I would have more respect for them in a way if they were sitting down and plotting this all out.
That they were thinking, aha, how can we do this?
How can we restrict Canadian democracy and not make it look like that's what we're doing?
And, you know, if they were plotting to restrict civil liberties, if they were plotting To diminish parliament, if they were plotting to restrict democracy.
I think that they're just naive twits who are softly skipping into all of this.
Plotting To Restrict Democracy00:00:26
And I think that a lot of the people in our business in the mainstream just don't have the cynical point of view anymore.
I mean, one of the great things that I think about being a journalist, and you and I used to work side by each across a desk from one another in a news magazine, One of the fun things was being able to be a cynic, being able to say, hey, look,