More People Died in Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Trial than What the Company Originally Claimed

Back in August, I reported how Pfizer hurriedly cut short the clinical trial for its COVID-19 mRNA 'vaccine', variously known as "Comirnaty" and "BNT162b2". The supposedly double-blind trial originally had an Estimated Primary Completion Date of 11 August 2021 and a Study Completion Date of 23 March 2023.

But on 28 July 2021, Pfizer casually announced it began unblinding the trial way back in December 2020!

Participants who had been randomized to placebo were unblinded and offered BNT162b2. Those who took up the offer were then followed in "open-label" fashion.

By dismantling the double-blind trial at such an early juncture, Pfizer was sabotaging the ability to gather longer-term double-blind clinical trial data on the efficacy and safety of its mRNA clot shot.

Double-blind randomized clinical trials, as we all know, have been incessantly touted as the "gold standard" of clinical research. Yet Pfizer just about tripped over itself in a rush to dismantle the only such trial of its COVID 'vaccine.'

Why would it do this?

Sometimes, researchers are forced to cut short a clinical trial because they run out of funding, as happened with the DART II fish oil trial years ago.

But Pfizer, a company with a $289 billion market capitalization, is swimming in money thanks to its mRNA pseudo-vaccine; the company reported $11.3 billion in revenue from the shady new drug in the first half of 2021 alone.

So the pharma giant can hardly cite a lack of funds as an excuse for dismantling the trial.

Nor can it even begin to claim it disbanded the blinded trial for 'ethical' reasons.

This is when a treatment shows such stunning efficacy during a trial that the researchers conclude it would be unethical to continue. Out of fairness to the control group, they unblind the trial, inform the control participants they were taking a placebo, and offer them the option of taking the active treatment.

But again, Pfizer can hardly claim it busted up the trial for ethical reasons.

By far the most important outcome - and the most definitive - in a clinical trial is overall mortality. Drug company researchers can fiddle and fudge the listed cause of death, but overall mortality is overall mortality. If a patient is dead, he's dead. And if more patients die in the drug group then in the control group, then that is a definite cause for concern - because no-one takes a drug to save themselves from one health condition, only to increase their chance of dying from some other condition.

In the same 28 July 2021 preprint where Pfizer casually announced it had unblinded the trial, one could also find overall mortality figures for the BNT162b2 and placebo groups.

Pfizer, true to form, only awarded a few brief lines to these critical figures. A look at those figures quickly reveals why:

During the blinded period, 15 BNT162b2 died, compared to 14 placebo recipients.

During the subsequent open-label period, a further 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died.

So during the blinded period, there was actually one more death in the BNT162b2 group - the group taking the drug that our hopelessly sleazy media and chief health officers keep telling us is "95% effective."

In a trial where one more person in fact died in the treatment group, Pfizer can hardly claim it stopped the trial out of 'ethical' concerns for the control group. Given Pfizer's long and well-documented history of fraudulent behavior, we are faced with the distinct possibility the trial was unblinded for unethical reasons, most likely to stop the death trajectory in the vaxxxine group diverging even further north from that of the control group.

Guess what? Data released twelve days ago show the difference between the BNT162b2 and placebo groups was even greater than what Pfizer let on back in July!

BNT162b2: Deadlier than Placebo

Recently, on 8 November, the pharma-friendly FDA released its "Summary Basis for Regulatory Action," explaining why on 23 August it granted full approval to Pfizer’s pseudo-vaccine, replacing the previous "emergency authorization" for the drug.

Before I reveal what the FDA summary shows, let me reiterate that the mortality figures Pfizer presented in its 28 July preprint were from "Safety data reported up to March 13, 2021."

The safety data from the Pfizer trial presented in the 8 November FDA summary was also that reported 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 bombshell:

"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 six more deaths in the BNT162b2 group than what Pfizer originally told us, and three more deaths in the placebo group.

I say "at least" because who knows what else Pfizer - a company that has racked up literally billions in criminal and civil penalties for dishonesty offences - is hiding from us.

So why didn't Pfizer report these deaths back in July?

Claiming delays in obtaining the full death data isn't a convincing excuse, given the 4-and-a-half-month gap between the 13 March data cut-off and the 28 July preprint. A preprint, remember, is just a preprint - it has not been peer-reviewed, so is not a paper that contains data that aged while researchers and peer-reviewers went back-and-forth with criticisms, suggestions and corrections.

Just how long does it take these jokers to work out that a dead participant is dead, for crying out loud?

"Give him another nudge, William, and if he doesn't move we'll come back in four months and try again!"


Whatever the reason for this substantial discrepancy, it makes all those fraudulent claims that "Covid-19 Vaccines Save Lives" look even more ridiculous. Well, at least to intelligent people which, I concede, are pretty damn rare these days.

Remember how our sleazy authorities and fakestream media just love bandying about relative risk reduction figures? Instead of quoting the absolute figures and revealing that the Pfizer vaccine is 0·84% 'effective' (i.e. ineffective), they continually feed us a bunch of horseshit about "95%" efficacy.

Well, two can play that game. Let's apply the relative risk approach to the newly revealed overall mortality figures.

The 28 July death data cited 21,926 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 21,921 in the placebo group.

Using the new death figures (21 in the BNT162b2 group, 17 in placebo), that gives a death rate of 0.0957% in the pseudo-vaccine group and 0.0775% in the placebo group.

Which means the BNT162b2 group suffered a 23.4% relative increase in the risk of premature death.

So, instead of misleading headlines that read "Pfizer vaccine 95% effective against COVID," a far more honest replacement would read "Pfizer vaccine increases risk of death by 24%."

In reality, the Pfizer drug - along with all the other fake vaccines - is far, far more dangerous than that. As the first whistleblower in the video below reports, these atrocious concoctions are causing human suffering on an unprecedented scale.

Just like they were meant to.

If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip

This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity. Researching and writing articles like this takes a lot of time, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated!

Send a Tip via PayPal

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.