In Part 1, I presented evidence showing the global COVID-19 'pandemic' was not a surprise viral outbreak but a pre-planned false flag event years in the making. Just as whistle-blower Dr Rima Laibow warned back in 2009, the 'vaccines' ushered in by this staged pandemic are not designed to effectively immunize you against any virus. Just the opposite: They are highly toxic and often lethal drugs that have racked up an unprecedented volume of deaths and adverse event reports.
Some of you might be asking, "If the COVID vaccines are so deadly, then what's with all the news reports claiming they save lives?"
Surely health authorities and media outlets around the world would never lie to us about something like this, right?
To understand how deadly the vaxxxines really are, we first need to tear down their (anti)scientific facade. I've already written numerous times about the farcical and fraudulent nature of the COVID 'vaccine' trials, but today I'll present even more damning evidence. Much of this new evidence has emerged after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were forced to start releasing some 450,000 pages of documentation pertaining to their extremely dubious authorization and approval of the Pfizer 'vaccine' (BNT162b2 a.k.a. Comirnaty). This dissection will revolve largely around Pfizer's drug, because it is both the world's most widely-used COVID 'vaccine' and the drug for which the most evidence of malfeasance has become available. But don't be fooled into thinking the other 'vaccines' are any better or safer - all indications are that they are just as dangerous and shoddily 'researched.'
Never Forget the Fundamentals (If You Were Ever Taught Them...)
Let's start with some critical information that should be taught in schools but isn't, resulting in a population woefully ignorant about the scientific method; a population who thinks "follow the science" means uncritically soaking up the sensationalist hogwash vomited by corrupt health authorities and the sleazy mainstream media.
When it comes to determining the efficacy of therapeutic drugs, the highest form of scientific evidence is not newspaper headlines, it is not flabby chief medical officers, and it is not corrupt career bureaucrats who make hundreds of millions of dollars in vaccine royalties.
When determining just how effective a drug is, the highest form of evidence we have is the randomized, double-blind clinical trial. It's all well and good to try a new drug and then swear to everyone who will listen it's the shizzle because - woohoo! - you didn't get the disease it was claimed to prevent. It's also well and good (if not absurd) to state that, okay, you still got the disease the drug was heavily marketed to prevent, but hey, it would've been way worse if you didn't get the drug!
These claims are known as anecdote. You may swear until you're black and blue that the drug was effective - and maybe you are right. Or maybe you are more wrong than white socks with black shoes.
In the absence of a biologically identical twin who had the exact same risk exposure and did everything you did except take the drug, it's hard to know.
Are the benefits you perceive really derived from the drug, or a lucky coincidence, or due to other protective behaviours you engage in? Or are they simply all in your mind - a mind that has been influenced by a historically unprecedented tsunami of pro-vaxxxine propaganda?
Questions like these cannot be definitively answered by anecdotal experience, which is influenced by subjective and confounding factors. That's why we have randomized, double-blind, clinical trials, which are designed to determine a treatment's efficacy in as objective a manner as possible. In a nutshell, a double-blind drug RCT works like this: A bunch of participants are recruited and randomly assigned to receive either the drug or an identical-looking placebo for a given period of time. Neither the participants nor the researchers running the trial know who is getting the drug and who is getting the placebo. This helps prevent the results being biased by the very real placebo effect among patients, and the tendency for researchers to skew results in favour of a treatment they consciously or subconsciously believe to be effective. Double-blind conditions also help guard against financial influences: If researchers receive funding, honoraria or other benefits from the manufacturer of the drug they are testing, there exists an obvious potential for bias when 'interpreting' the results.
Even the terminally corrupt FDA acknowledges the importance of double-blind trial conditions, and waxes lyrical about them in its Guidance for Industry. Double-blind trials - or at least the pretense of such trials - are a prerequisite for gaining new drug approval from the FDA.
Early on in the vaccine sham, authorities and the media were loudly claiming the new COVID drugs were 67% (AstraZeneca) to 95% (Pfizer) effective. These figures were derived from early data allegedly generated by the RCTs of these drugs. Those figures have since quietly disappeared from news stories, instead replaced by unprecedented admonitions to get a never-ending series of 'booster' shots. South Australia's chief public health officer Nicola "The Nutty Professor" Spurrier, for example, recently urged the public to "book your third dose as two doses leaves you vulnerable to serious illness."
Wait a minute ... whatever happened to two doses being 95% effective?
Why does taking two doses of a drug now leave you vulnerable to a serious bout of illness (the same illness the drug was supposed to prevent, no less), but a third dose of that same ineffective drug suddenly becomes effective?
Where is the evidence for this?
It doesn't exist.
When the "Nutty Professor" and her ilk urge you to do something, you should strongly consider doing the opposite. Your life could depend on it.
The 67-95% figures were a blatant fraud from the outset, and so are the claims now being made in support of the ridiculous 'booster' charade. None of the clinical trials conducted and cited in support of the "Emergency Use Authorizations" for these drugs showed any clinical benefit.
This brings us to the monumental problem with double-blind drug RCTs: They have been hopelessly corrupted.
The World Runs on Corruption, and Science is No Exception
When performed in good faith, RCTs are indeed the best method we have for determining the efficacy of drugs and other therapeutic interventions compatible with the placebo protocol.
Unfortunately, double-blind RCTs have long since degenerated into a tool for Big Pharma to paint useless and harmful drugs as highly beneficial. These fraudulently misrepresented drugs can then be relentlessly marketed and often go on to become "blockbuster" drugs earning billions for their makers. Researchers and whistle-blowers who don't go along with the charade find themselves blackballed, out of work, and even threatened with legal action.
The RRR Charade
One of the favoured methods employed by Pharma-funded researchers to distort the results of RCTs is the disingenuous "relative risk reduction" (RRR) ruse, which I unmask here.
The 67-95% figures cited for the vaxxxine trials were a textbook classic demonstration of this ruse, in which the incidence figures for the drug and treatment groups are taken out of context in an emperor-has-no-clothes charade that pretends the majority of trial participants don't exist. In April 2021, a group of Oxford researchers revealed how the RRR sham had been used to greatly inflate the efficacy figures for all the vaxxxines.
The Oxford researchers presented the far more complete and straightforward absolute risk reduction figures which, they noted, "tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs."
And so what were the absolute risk reductions for COVID infection seen for the 'vaccines' in the clinical trials? Take a look:
1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford "clot shot";
1·2% for the Moderna–NIH mRNA "Fauci Ouchie";
1·2% for the J&J drug (brought to you by the same people who knowingly sold asbestos-laced baby powder);
0·93% for Sputnik V (From Russia With
Love Serious Quality Control Issues);
0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech "Pfizercarditis" mRNA drug.
That's right: In its clinical trial, the "95% effective" Pfizer drug was actually less than 1% effective in preventing COVID.
Based on these results alone, none of these drugs should ever have been allowed to market.
But even those paltry figures don't tell the full story. The absolute risk reduction figures still exaggerate the efficacy of these drugs, because they don't factor in the rampant funny business that clearly took place in those trials. The trials were conducted by the criminally dishonest manufacturers of these drugs, which automatically presents a glaring conflict of interest.
AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are criminal corporations with decades-long track records of egregious fraud and dishonesty offences. Not only have these companies racked up billions in criminal and civil penalties, but Pfizer holds the record for the largest ever criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. And yet it is still allowed to trade as if nothing ever happened, and even enjoys the prestige of being the world's #1 vaxxxine supplier to governments the world over.
Which just goes to show that the Latin American cartels have it all wrong. Instead of peddling illicit porqueria like meth and coke, they need to start their own pharmaceutical companies. Then they can kill as many people as they want, still get stupidly rich, all while staying on the right side of the law. Sure, they'll have to pay a big fine every once in a while to help regulators keep up the appearance of propriety, but it will be but a small chunk of the obscene profits they make. As a bonus, narco bosses-turned-pharma CEOs won't have to worry about DEA raids, jail time or getting gunned down outside fancy Puerto Vallarta restaurants.
Capo di tutti pharma capi and head of the Pfizer crime family, Albert Bourla.
Moderna, meanwhile, a much younger company that dismally failed to get a drug to market until its mRNA drug was granted an EUA in 2020, has yet to establish a criminal CV - but insiders describe its CEO as an aggressively entrepreneurial bully who cares far more about profits and share prices than science.
If ever there was a ridiculous "conspiracy theory," it's the claim that this motley assortment of money-hungry malevolents joined forces with the power-hungry degenerates in government because they really care about you. The drugs developed from this coalition of corrupt deviants are called vaccines, even though they bear no resemblance to a traditional vaccine. These pseudo-vaccines we are told, "save lives!" even though the condition they are designed to treat already has a 99.85% survival rate. We are told these drugs are lifesavers, even though their clinical trials failed to evince a single saved life. We are further supposed to believe these drugs, which normally would take years to develop, were miraculously created in just several weeks. If you believe all that - despite this charade having already been laid out years in advance on publicly accessible forums - then you're dumber than a Blink-182 song.
Plastic punkers Blink-182 congratulate recipients of the death shots in this reworking of their infamous Enema Of The State album cover. Needless to say, real punk rockers don't praise the wares of multinational pharma criminals nor take part in globalist depopulation scams.
The Double-Blind Trials that Were Not Double-Blind
The Moderna trial was promoted as double-blind, but it wasn't: Staff members from the company - as opposed to independent reviewers with no financial conflicts of interests - had access to the results while the trial was still in progress. We didn't need a whistle-blower to tell us this; it was hidden in plain sight for anyone who bothered to read their published trial paper (which 99.9% of the Follow The Science!™ crowd clearly did not).
The Moderna trial was advertised as double-blind - but it wasn't really.
The multi-country scheissen-show that was the Pfizer trial was also supposed to be double-blind but, again, it wasn't. Whistle-blower Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia Research Group, revealed to BMJ last year that Pfizer 'vaccine' trials at several sites in Texas were plagued by unblinding, falsified data, breaching of fundamental rules, and slow reporting of adverse reactions. When she alerted senior management at Ventavia, who were conducting Pfizer's Texas trial arms, she was ignored. She then alerted the FDA, who did absolutely nothing about the breaches. Instead, the Pharma-funded agency immediately contacted Ventavia to let them know they had a whistle-blower in their midst. Jackson was fired by Ventavia the very same day she contacted the FDA.
All of the AstraZeneca trial arms, bar one, did not even make a pretense of being double-blind. They were all single-blind trials, save for the South African arm - which failed to find any reduction in COVID infections, hospitalizations or deaths for the "clot shot."
The Big Pfat Pfizer Pfudging
In any trial, there will inevitably be people who drop out due to side effects or for personal reasons, or who will be excluded from the study for non-compliance. In the Pfizer trial, hundreds of extra 'vaccine' participants were mysteriously excluded from the study for unspecified reasons. This makes no sense: Being a randomized trial, there should have been similar numbers of dropouts and exclusions in both the drug and placebo groups. In the figure below, we see there were indeed a similar number of subjects excluded from the study for not receiving all their vaccination/placebo shots within the required time frame. This is exactly what you would expect in a randomized study. However, in the vague category of "Had other important protocol deviations" there is a far higher number of excluded subjects in the Pfizer group compared to the placebo group - a whopping 311 versus only 61, respectively. That is a difference of 250 subjects, a glaring anomaly that demands explanation.
That 250-person difference between the drug and placebo groups dwarfed the total number of COVID cases recorded in the study. The potential implications of this are huge: In a study with only 170 total COVID-19 diagnoses, and only 6 deaths, a 250-person difference in exclusions for no specific reason could have had a huge impact on the study's results. By excluding 250 people from the drug group, a result that favoured the placebo group could easily have been instantly transformed into a result that favoured the drug group.
Did Pfizer intentionally exclude a significant number of positive COVID-19 cases, serious adverse effects and/or deaths among Cominarty subjects using the "other important protocol deviations" category?
Given Pfizer's long criminal history, its refusal to explain this glaring discrepancy, and the efforts of its buddies at the FDA to try and place a 75-year embargo on the data used for the drug's EUA and approval, that is the only logical conclusion I can come to.
Never Mind the Polacks
On 31 December 2020, the first 'peer-reviewed' data from the Pfizer trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) - once the world's most prestigious medical journal, now little more than a Pharma advertising outlet disguised as a journal.
The lead author of that paper was a rather nefarious character from Argentina by the name of Fernando Pedro Polack. NEJM cleverly avoided listing Polack's many conflicts of interest in the main paper, as it should have done, instead hiding them away in supplementary material that never gets the same scrutiny as a main paper.
When we dig out the "Disclosure Forms" from the supplementary material, we learn that not only does Polack work as a consultant for Pfizer, he is also co-founder, co-owner and President of iTRIALS and also Fundación INFANT. iTRIALS is the trial site management company that ran the Pfizer trial in Argentina and also in some parts of the USA.
The company's main website states it has a presence in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, but the company also has an office in Miami, Florida, where Polack's father Noberto acts as manager.
Don't cry for Polack and his papá, Argentina. They appear to be doing just fine.
In his NEJM disclosure, Fernando Polack also reported grants from Novavax and personal fees from Janssen, Bavarian Nordic A/S, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Medimmune, Vir Bio, Ark Bio, Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. At least eight of these companies are engaged in RSV vaccine research in babies and pregnant women.
Polack also receives funding from, among others, the NIH and the Optimus Foundation.
The latter is run by Swiss financial giant UBS and also sponsors the Gavi Vaccine Alliance which helped field Event 201 in New York in October 2019, the "strategic planning" exercise that predicted a global Sars-based pandemic, involving a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats. By way of remarkable 'coincidence', no sooner was Event 201 over than the first rumblings about a Sars-based pandemic, involving a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats, began emanating from Wuhan, China. Other sponsors of Gavi include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Google, and a host of seemingly disparate countries ranging from Australia to Russia.
And to really top things off, Polack openly boasts on social media that he is a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee that decides whether or not to approve vaccines. So we have the ridiculous and clearly improper scenario involving a guy heading pre-approval research for a 'vaccine' he has a deep financial interest in, a 'vaccine' whose approval depends on people who just happen to sit on the same commitee he does!
Peer review, sadly, has long since been superseded by pal review.
At a 17 May 2017 VRBPAC meeting, the committee's Captain Serina Hunter-Thomas kicked off the proceedings with a conflict of interest spiel that acknowledged fellow member Polack had "financial interests in or professional relationships with some of the affected firms identified for this meeting, namely Janssen, Novavax, and Bavarian Nordic." He was then allowed to not only continue sitting in on the meeting, but also dominate the subsequent discussion!
What an absolute farce.
In February 2021, the
National Enquirer NEJM published a paper by Polack's Fundación INFANT–COVID-19 Group. In that paper, Polack and his colleagues claimed they had run a double-blind RCT and found "Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma ... to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19."
A major funder of the study was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization whose obsession with vaccines, 'pandemics' and population control is now well-documented. Many of Polack's co-authors were also connected with the United Nations and World Health Organization, both instrumental in getting the COVID hysteria campaign rolling in early 2020 by absurdly declaring a global 'pandemic' in response to a flu outbreak with a near 100% survival rate. The WHO was also instrumental in boosting the daily barrage of hysterical case counts by introducing new and very accommodating international classifications for COVID-19; classifications so wide and vague that regular flu, cold and pneumonia were able to be reclassified as the supposedly 'novel' coronavirus.
A week after Polack's convalescent plasma paper was published in NEJM, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a systematic review and meta-analysis on the very same topic. The far less conflicted authors of this review examined ten previous RCTs and found "Among patients with COVID-19, treatment with convalescent plasma compared with control was not associated with improved survival or other positive clinical outcomes." This raises serious questions about the veracity of the Polack trial, which claimed to have observed a massive 48% relative risk reduction in severe respiratory disease and a whopping 50% RRR in COVID-19 death!
So is Polack the kind of 'researcher' that would ever fudge the data to appease his wealthy clients and sponsors?
The case of Augusto Roux indicates the answer to that question is a resounding YES.
Disappeared in Argentina
Augusto Roux is a health-conscious 36-year-old from Buenos Aires. He doesn’t smoke or drink, runs frequently and does CrossFit. He wanted to get vaccinated because his mother has emphysema and he was worried about infecting her. So he volunteered early on to participate in the clinical trial of the BioNTech–Pfizer vaxxxine. It would turn out to be a big mistake.
His first dose was on 21 August 2020. He felt pain and swelling in his arm right after the injection. Later that day he had nausea, difficulty swallowing, and felt hungover. Over the next 5-6 days, his sense of smell was more sensitive, his stools were frequent and white, and his urine in the morning was darker than usual but not coluric. During an August 23 clinical trial visit he was classified as a “toxicity grade 1 adverse effect”.
On September 9, Augusto had his second dose of the vaxxxine. On the way home by taxi, he started feeling unwell. Ninety minutes after getting his shot, he was short of breath, had burning pain in his chest and felt extremely fatigued. He lay on his bed and fell asleep. He woke up at 9pm with nausea and fever (38-39C) and was unable to get out of bed due to the fatigue.
Over the next two days, he reported a high fever (41C) and feeling delirious. On 11 September, his morning urine was dark (reportedly "like Coca-Cola"). He felt as if his heart expanded, had a sudden lack of breath and fell unconscious on the floor for approximately 3 hours.
Once he recovered, he felt tired, was uncomfortable, had a high heart rate on minor effort, and was dizzy when changing posture. He had chest pain which radiated to his left arm and back. He contacted a friend who recommended he go to hospital. He was admitted to the Hospital Alemán for two days (September 12 to 14). It was initially thought he had COVID and so he was isolated. Subsequent testing for Sars-Cov-2 came back negative, but chest X-ray and CT scan revealed changes consistent with vaccine-induced pericarditis.
Augusto was discharged on 14 September with a diagnosis of "Reacción adversa a vacuna de coronavirus (alta probilidad)" and "EFECTO ADVERSO A VACUNACION."
In English: "Adverse reaction to coronavirus vaccine (high probability)" and "ADVERSE EFFECT OF VACCINATION."
This was written by Gisela di Stilio – a senior specialist, not a junior doctor.
Needless to say, a high-probability diagnosis of an adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaxxxine from a senior doctor at a major hospital after extensive testing should have been recorded by the trial researchers as a serious adverse event from the trial intervention.
But that's not what happened.
UK researcher David Healy has documented the whole disgraceful saga at his site, but in short, the trial researchers altered Augusto's clinical trial record to imply that, despite the hospital diagnosis and against all the evidence, his symptoms were due to COVID-19 and not the vaxxxine!
This act of blatant dishonesty, which involved fabricating a diagnosis of COVID occurring within a week of the vaccine dose, meant the company didn't have to report anything. And they didn't. "Events like his just disappear," notes Healy, thanks to such fraudulent behaviour.
The saga hardly ended there. Upon receiving his diagnosis, Augusto demanded to know which arm of the RCT he was randomized to and said he would bail out of the trial unless informed. He was contacted by Polack, who refused to tell him which group he was in. The audacious Polack instead tried to persuade Augusto to stay in the trial.
Augusto stated he would take his case to ANMAT, the Argentinian medicines regulator, and he wasn't kidding: A hearing was scheduled for 9 October 2020.
This appears to have triggered Polack into panic mode, because he then entered a flurry of notes into Augusto's trial record claiming the young man suffered anxiety, implying he was a conspiracist, and that he developed a severe mental illness on or around September 23. Polack made a point of stating that this mythical mental disturbance was not caused by the vaccine.
Polack's claims of mental illness had no foundation, because there is no evidence whatsoever he or any other doctor attempted to establish via valid medical procedures if Augusto suffered a psychiatric illness. All the evidence points to a desperate and sleazy fabrication by the Pfizer-funded Polack to personally discredit Augusto and dismiss his vaccine-induced adverse reaction as being due to an unsound mind.
As Augusto has pointed out, it is in breach of Argentinian law for Polack to diagnose someone with a medical condition the person did not have – and to enter it into his medical record.
This document, recently released by the secretive FDA after being ordered to do so by a US court, lists thousands upon thousands of patients who were excluded from the Pfizer trial.
The first 644 pages are dated 24 November 2020, which is a mere 10 days after the 14 November cut-off for trial data submitted to the FDA for its 10 December EUA assessment meeting. The remaining pages are dated 02 December 2020. Now, remember the graph I showed you above, with the 250-person discrepancy in unexplained exclusions? That graph, taken from page 18 of the FDA's briefing document, states the total number of exclusions as of 14 November 2020 was 1,790. Yet the recently-released FDA document, shows 3,375 exclusions as of 24 November 2020.
And by 02 December 2020, there were 9,702 exclusions.
So we're supposed to believe, in the space of only ten days, an extra 1,585 people were suddenly booted from the trial - almost as many as were excluded during all of August, September, October and the first half of November?
Or was it simply that the number of exclusions was deliberately trimmed down, and submission of the removed exclusions conveniently delayed until after the 14 November cut-off to allow the FDA to claim plausible deniability when granting the EUA to its friends at Pfizer?
This entire situation emits a thermonuclear degree of pungence. It becomes clearer with every new tranche of court-ordered data why the FDA fought tooth and nail to block access to its Comirnaty EUA/approval documentation.
As you scroll through the list of exclusions, take note of the multitude of subjects whose reason for exclusion is listed as "Did not complete 2 vaccination doses." No further explanation is given, making this a very convenient ground on which to quietly eject people from the study who experienced adverse reactions after the first shot and therefore could not or did not want to receive the second shot.
Augusto (volunteer number 12312982) is not included in that list. This suggests Augusto is still registered with Pfizer and the FDA as a case of COVID occurring within 7 days of dose 2. They are still ignoring him and, it seems, hundreds and possibly thousands of others.
The fate of those 311 vaxxxine subjects mysteriously excluded from the Pfizer trial seems a lot clearer now, doesn't it?
Pfudging the Death Figures
The 31 December 2020 NEJM paper by Polack and accomplices was the first paper that publicly presented the so-called "interim" data from the Pfizer trial. This interim data infamously used the criminally short two-month follow-up period that was allowed, in an unprecedented move, to grant all the vaxxxines Emergency Use Authorization.
In that paper, Polack and his fellow Pharma-owned researchers claimed that, as of 9 October 2020, two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction).
Note the 9 October cut-off: The FDA meeting on 10 December 2020 where the EUA was granted used a cut-off date of 14 November 2020 for the trial data, so the inclusion of trial data up to 9 October 2020 for the public NEJM paper is rather curious. As is pretty much everything emanating from Pfizer and the FDA.
"No deaths," read Pfizer's NEJM paper, "were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo."
As if we could expect any other conclusion from the likes of Polack.
None of the deaths were due to the Woohoo virus, which showed what a complete sham the whole COVID charade was (and is). This was a paper presenting data for 37,706 participants recruited at 152 sites worldwide (United States, 130 sites; Argentina, 1; Brazil, 2; South Africa, 4; Germany, 6; and Turkey, 9). We were told ad nauseum COVID was a highly infectious, highly deadly virus, the likes of which the world had never seen before. We were further repeatedly told the USA, Latin America and South Africa were "hot spots" for this lethal virus, yet there was not a single COVID-related death among the nearly 40,000 subjects!
On 28 July 2021, a new 'updated' study by the Pfizer researchers appeared on preprint site medrxiv.org, purporting to share the six-month safety and efficacy data for BNT162b2. The mortality figures Pfizer presented in its 28 July preprint were from "Safety data reported up to March 13, 2021."
Less than a month after this study appeared, BNT162b2 went from enjoying Emergency Use Authorization status to becoming a FDA-approved drug. Interestingly, the regulatory approval was granted to BioNTech despite the fact the EUA for BNT162b2 was granted to Pfizer, who markets the drug and whose livery has appeared on its packaging right from the outset. This strongly suggests some shady cover your ass-type legal shenanigans, the implications of which I won't explore here because I don't want to deviate from the main point of this article.
Someone naive to the ways of Big Pharma, and the regulatory agencies it effectively owns, might assume the updated data was really impressive. The EUA might have been granted in a bit of a rush and therefore accommodated some less-than-optimal data, but the full approval must've been granted under less pressured and more considered grounds, right?
Despite being by far the most important outcome - and the most definitive - the authors gave overall mortality a few brief lines in the preprint. Read them carefully:
"During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups."
So all up, 20 subjects who received BNT162b2 died, compared to 14 of the placebo subjects.
More people died after getting the vaxxxine than after receiving placebo.
So whatever the Pfizer vaxxxine is allegedly "95% effective" at, it sure as heck isn't saving lives.
But wait, it gets worse.
On 8 November 2021, Polack's buddies at the FDA released their "Summary Basis for Regulatory Action" purporting to explain why on 23 August the agency granted full approval to Pfizer’s pseudo-vaccine. This approval replaced the previous EUA for the drug, giving it the misleading air of a properly tested and approved drug.
As with Pfizer's 28 July preprint, the FDA figures for BNT162b2 were from "Safety data reported up to March 13, 2021." So you would naturally expect the overall mortality data in the FDA report to be identical to that in Pfizer's preprint.
But scroll down to page 23 of the 30 page FDA report, and you'll find this eyebrow-raising tidbit:
"From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY group and 17 in the placebo group."
So there were at least four more deaths among the trial participants than what Pfizer originally told us.
It's unclear from the FDA document whether these extra four deaths occurred during the (supposedly) blinded portion of the study. The "Safety and Pharmacovigilance" section of the paper, which contains the death figures, deals with "serious adverse events from Dose 1 up to the participant unblinding date."
So if those four extra deaths occurred only in blinded participants, it means there were in fact six extra deaths among the BNT162b2 subjects than what Pfizer originally claimed, and 3 among the placebo subjects.
If the death figures include both blinded subjects and subjects who had been unblinded as of 13 March 2021, then why hasn't the FDA specified this, and detailed the number of patients in each category, for each group?
Which in turn would beg another question: Did some of the "placebo" deaths the FDA cites in its Summary Basis for Regulatory Action actually occur in former placebo subjects while taking BNT162b2 after being unblinded?
If you think that's a bit far-fetched, it is not: This very scenario has indeed occurred before. As someone who has extensively studied the thoroughly rotten world of antidepressant research, the example that immediately springs to my mind is the TADS study which involved the glorified toxin known as Prozac. In a paper attempting to downplay adolescent suicidality in the TADS trial, Benedetto Vitiello - from none other than the taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health (the same umbrella organization that oversees Fauci's NIAID) - and his accomplices (four of whom received funding from the likes of Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Abbott, Jazz and more) misleadingly presented nine cases of suicidal behaviour as occurring in the placebo group even though the patients were using Prozac at the time and the placebo period had ended!
Great to see taxpayer money being spent so wisely, isn't it?
What we can say with certainty from the Pfizer preprint and FDA summary basis doc is that there are several deaths from the period in question that Pfizer failed to report back in July 2021.
As is par for the course, the terminally dishonest drug giant hasn't proferred anything resembling a tenable explanation.
The Other Vaxxines Do Not Save Lives, Either.
The interim results for the Phase 3 trial of the Moderna vaxxxine (mRNA-1273) were first published at the NEJM website on 30 December 2020.
In the main paper and in Table S8 of the supplementary appendix, the overall death count for the placebo group is listed as 3, and none of those deaths were from COVID: One was from intra-abdominal perforation, one from cardiopulmonary arrest, and one from severe systemic inflammatory syndrome in a participant with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diffuse bullous rash.
For the mRNA-1273 group, the main paper and Table S8 list two deaths (one from cardiopulmonary arrest and one by suicide).
So the total death count among the 28,000 participants in this study as of the interim analysis was 3 in the placebo group and 2 in the mRNA-1273. An almost identical death rate in both groups, and no deaths caused by COVID.
As with the Pfizer trial, all the Moderna trial really showed is that the COVID hysteria is a complete farce, and that vaxxxines do not save lives.
In Australia, the first vaxxxine to hit the market and start killing people was the AstraZeneca-Oxford drug, which proudly contained a chimpanzee adenovirus and what is purported to be the gene encoding for the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein. Why anyone would allow themselves to be injected with such unappealing mierda is beyond me, but hey, we are talking the same species that willingly shoves all manner of toxic junk down its throat, up its nose and into its veins.
The first peer-reviewed paper proclaiming the alleged efficacy and safety of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (also known as the "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine") was published online in the Lancet on 8 December 2020. This was the 'interim' data that supposedly showed the vaccine was Safe and Effective!™ and justified its approval by UK authorities on 30 December 2020.
The AstraZeneca trial arms that featured in that paper were a complete abomination, as I explain in detail here. Among their many flaws, the researchers were unblinded, rendering the results of the AstraZeneca/Oxford University-run trial untrustworthy and ultimately meaningless. Adding to the farce, the 'control' treatment was not a saline placebo but a meningococcal vaccine.
After a mean two months of this nonsense, the researchers reported one death allegedly due to COVID in the meningococcal vaccine group. There were a further three non-COVID deaths in the meningococcal vaccine group, and one in the Oxford-AstraZeneca group.
Like I said, this study is a useless piece of slop on numerous grounds. It was an unblinded farce that compared a vaxxxine with a vaccine. Given that those who have no interest in getting a COVID 'vaccine' are highly unlikely to go out and get a meningococcal vaccine instead, the choice of control treatment was, quite frankly, stupid and renders the paper irrelevant.
On 16 March 2021, the AstraZeneca-Oxford collaboration grudgingly released the results from a far less moronic arm of its trial. This was the arm conducted in South Africa where the so-called B.1.351 variant of the Woohoo virus was allegedly running amok.
Unlike the other farcical ChAdOx1 arms, the South African arm was listed as double-blind and featured a saline solution as placebo.
In this trial, there were a mere 42 cases of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 occurred among 2,000 participants, with similar numbers in the drug and vaccine groups. Two deaths occurred in the arm, both in the placebo group and both unrelated to COVID-19.
The Science Has Spoken
Even in the face of sloppy methodology at best, and downright fraud at worst, none of the Pharma-sponsored and -run clinical trials have shown that the Brave New World vaxxxines save a single life from COVID or any of its so-called variants. All these studies really confirm is that COVID is a total farce whose incidence and severity has been hysterically exaggerated for reasons that have nothing to do with public health.
As a result, the clinical trials have quietly been 'forgotten' by health authorities and their compliant lackies in the media. Instead, health authorities are doing what they always do when the clinical trial evidence doesn't support their agenda: Namely, using heavily-manipulated epidemiological statistics to support their blatant lie that "vaccines save lives."
In the next installment, I'll discuss the shambolic epidemiological methods relied upon by health authorities to perpetuate the fraudulent claim that the 'unvaccinated' are more susceptible to COVID infection, hospitalization and death even when the RCT and real world evidence shows the exact opposite.
1. Hough A. Last jabs off the rank. Advertiser, May 23, 2022 (Paywalled article).
If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip
This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated.