New Trial Data Reveals Higher Death Rate with Pfizer COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’

Earlier this year, I dissected the early 'safety' and 'efficacy' data for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID pseudo-vaccine (a.k.a. BNT162b2, Tozinameran, Comirnaty). My analysis showed why the 95% efficacy claim being made for BNT162b2 was a bad joke; subsequent articles further discussed the numerous highly suspicious anomalies present in the trial design, conduct and reporting.

On 28 July 2021, a new 'updated' study appeared on preprint site medrxiv.org, purporting to share the six-month safety and efficacy data for BNT162b2. On 23 August 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).

Among the 32 listed authors whose names appear on the new paper, 20 work for Pfizer and another works for BioNTech*. Lest there be any doubt as to who was really running the trial, the corresponding author for the study is one Judith Absalon, from Pfizer Inc, Pearl River, NY.

With that kind of inherent conflict of interest, you might suspect the paper is a highly-biased farce.

And you'd be correct.

The paper doesn't waste any time in belting out the bollocks. The very first sentence in the abstract kicks things off by claiming "BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein." (Bold emphasis added)

What that gobbledegook really confirms is that BNT162b2 is not a vaccine. As I have stated umpteen times before, a vaccine is a weakened or inactivated form of whatever pathogen you are hoping to inoculate yourself against. BNT162b2 is not attenuated COVID-19 a.k.a Sars-Cov-2, but rather a drug featuring highly problematic mRNA technology. In this case, the messenger RNA in BNT162b2 are allegedly encoded with the protein sequence required to construct the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.

These spike proteins are the protrusions you see in popular depictions of a Sars-Cov-2 molecule, like the one below.

The purported mechanism of action behind this non-vaccine is that it tricks your own cells into first producing - not antibodies against Sars-Cov-2 - but the actual spike protein of Sars-Cov-2.

Read that last sentence again: This drug (along with the Moderna mRNA drug) instructs every cell in your own body to produce a key part of what we are repeatedly being told is the most destructive virus to ever afflict humankind. It just stuns me that anyone aware of this would still allow this junk to be injected into their bodies.

So how effective is this approach, which has previously shown itself to be so problematic that no mRNA drug had previously made it into Phase 3 testing, let alone achieved regulatory approval?

Well, this is where the paper's second egregious lie rears its ugly head. The second opening sentence claims "BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19."

That, as regular readers will know, is complete rubbish.

We all know BNT162b2 and its fellow Brave New World drugs were allowed to market before their clinical testing was complete. In fact, they were allowed to market even though the clinical testing had barely kicked off! "Emergency use authorization" for these dubious drugs was granted after a mere two months of "interim data," an unprecedented, reckless and truly disgraceful move.

It should be further noted that, in the case of BNT162b2, the median duration of that "two month" interim data was in fact 15 days, with the researchers examining three time points: Days 14 through 20 after the first dose of 'vaccine' or placebo, days 21 through 27 after the first dose, and day 7 after the second dose.

That "two month" "interim" data was obtained from trials conducted by the drug companies themselves, which have proven themselves time and time again to be hopelessly dishonest criminal enterprises. Pfizer has racked up billions of dollars in criminal and civil penalties for a vast array of fraud and dishonesty offences.

Little surprise, then, that the clinical trials were full of suspicious anomalies. The Pfizer trial, for example, inexplicably featured an inordinate number of people in the BNT162b2 group who dropped out of the trial for "other important protocol deviations." No further elaboration was provided, suggesting this nebulous category was used as a repository for participants who in fact suffered severe adverse reactions and/or died as a result of the mRNA pseudo-vaccine.

Pfizer also conveniently ignored "suspected" COVID cases, which if included in the study analysis would have rendered the difference in COVID infection rates between the drug and placebo groups meaningless, even when using the time-honoured relative risk ruse (for a full explanation of the relative risk sham, and how it was used to greatly exaggerate the alleged efficacy of the COVID-19 'vaccines,' see here).

But even with the evidence suggesting the company-sponsored trials had been heavily manipulated, the best absolute risk reductions the 'vaccines' could muster after 2 months of "interim" data were truly pathetic:

1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford drug;
1·2% for the Moderna–NIH mRNA drug;
1·2% for J&J;
0·93% for Gamaleya (Sputnik V);
0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA drug.

Again, these figures were based on the initial 'two month' 'interim' data from the clinical trials of these Frankensteinian drugs.

The data in this new paper supposedly deals with six-month follow-up of 44,165 participants aged 16 and older (in the US, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Turkey) and 2,264 participants aged 12-15 (all in the US). All were randomized to receive 2 doses, 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo.

The purported study endpoints reported in the paper are "vaccine efficacy (VE) against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19" and "safety data" up to 6 months after the pseudo-vaccination or placebo injections.

The paper's analyses are based on data accrued up to 13 March 2021. The original completion date for the supposedly double-blinded study was 2 May 2023. This is especially noteworthy because the original study protocol mentioned nothing about unblinding participants and giving placebo subjects the option of receiving BNT162b2, but beginning in December 2020, that's exactly what happened.

The trial description at ClinicalTrials.gov, which was last updated 26 August 2021, now claims "Participants who originally received placebo will be offered the opportunity to receive BNT162b2 at defined points as part of the study."

And so, following the farcical granting of "emergency/conditional use authorization" to BNT162b2 late last year, ≥16-year-old trial participants were given the option of unblinding, and unblinded participants who had been randomized to placebo were offered BNT162b2. Those who took up the offer were followed in "open-label" fashion.

As a result, only 51% of participants in each group had 4 to <6 months of blinded follow-up after their second dose - and a piddling 8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had 6 months or more of blinded follow-up after their second dose. This, remember, for a new and poorly tested drug that already suffers from a woeful lack of long-term double-blind safety data.

Sometimes trial researchers are prompted to stop a trial or break its blind early because the treatment and placebo groups are displaying starkly contrasting outcomes, and they believe it would be unethical to continue the trial. But given the pitiful absolute risk reduction observed for BNT162b2 at the 2-month timepoint, Pfizer cannot credibly claim it began unblinding out of concern for the wellbeing of placebo recipients.

So why did Pfizer break blind so early? I'll get back to that question after we take a look at the rather unflattering death figures.

The Results

With two-thirds of the researchers on the payroll of Pfizer and BioNtech, you can guess the conclusion that features in their paper:

"... despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19."

Sure.

Let's now look at what the paper really showed.

The authors begin their results section with a discussion of reactogenicity, which largely refers to common and "expected" side effects to vaccine administration, such as redness, inflammation, pain, fatigue and headache. Even using data for only 9,839 of the 40,000+ ≥16-year-old subjects, more BNT162b2 recipients experienced local and systemic reactogenicity.

No surprise there.

Next is their discussion of adverse events. Adverse event analyses during the blinded period were provided for 43,847 ≥16-year-olds, and they showed a higher rate of adverse events (30% vs 14%), related adverse events (24% vs 6%), and severe adverse events (1.2% vs 0.7%) between BNT162b2 and placebo groups.

The company-sponsored authors tried to rationalize this away by claiming it was an "imbalance" caused by "Reactogenicity events among participants not in the reactogenicity subset [being] reported as adverse events." Don't be fooled by this lawyer-like bollockery, because the plain English translation is:

"BNT162b2 subjects suffered significantly more adverse events, but only because they suffered significantly more adverse events."

But this is hardly the end of their shenanigans. The paper is titled "Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine," so you'd rightly expect it to contain the safety and efficacy data for the participants at six months.

But on page 6 we're told: "Cumulative safety follow-up was available up to 6 months post-dose 2 from combined blinded and open-label periods for 12,006 participants originally randomized to BNT162b2." (Bold emphasis added).

On page 8 we are told: "Safety data are now available for ~44,000 ≥16-year-old participants; 12,006 individuals have ≥6 months of safety follow-up data after a second BNT162b2 dose." (Bold emphasis added)

Astute readers will notice a number of discrepancies here. The most obvious is that the paper promises to deal with 6-month safety and efficacy data, but now we are told that data exists for only 12,006 of the ~44,000 participants who are 16 and over.

This six-month data is nowhere to be seen, not in the main paper nor in the supplementary material.

When we open the supplementary material, we instead learn something the researchers conveniently neglect to mention in their main paper. Namely, the safety data for the 43,847 over-16s only encompassed the period "from Dose 1 to 1 Month After Dose 2 During the Blinded Follow-up Period" (see Table S3).

As for the 12-15 group, another throwaway line under Table S3 merely states "Adverse events for 12‒15-year-old participants were reported previously," and cites a NEJM paper from May that also focused on 1-month safety data.

In other words, what this paper really deals with is the so-called safety and efficacy data up to one month after the second dose of BNT162b2 or placebo.

Also, as evinced by the text I've emphasized in bold, the researchers first tell us they have up to 6 months of safety data for the truncated subset of 12,006 people, then they state they have six months or more of safety data for this group.

Which is it?

Again, we don't know, because the researchers don't share the actual data with us.

They merely assure us that: "The safety profile observed at a median of 2 months post-immunization was confirmed up to 6 months post-immunization in this analysis."

With no actual data presented to us, we're just supposed to take their word for it.

They also add: "No cases of myocarditis were noted."

Given that myocarditis has become a commonly reported side effect of BNT162b2 (see here, here, here, and here for examples), all this confirms is that Pfizer's highly sanitized trial does not realistically reflect real world conditions.

After their duplicitous adverse event presentation, the researchers briefly mention deaths, but I'll get to that in a moment. For now, let's take a look at their far more lengthy discussion about BNT162b2's alleged efficacy.

Hi Ho Hogwash! The Relative Risk Ruse Rides Again!

The researchers claim that, among 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among BNT162b2 and 873 among placebo recipients.

Now:

There were 22,026 subjects in the BNT162b2 group, giving an infection incidence of 0.37%.

There were 22,021 subjects in the placebo group, giving an infection incidence of 3.96%.

Even if we accept those figures at face value - which we shouldn't, because Pfizer has proved itself beyond doubt to be a hopelessly dishonest entitity - that still gives an absolute risk reduction of only 3.59%.

Of course, that's not how the Pfizer- and BioNTech-employed researchers presented the figures. Despite their previous relative risk shenanigans having already been criticized and debunked in the widely-read Lancet, they went ahead and once again cited the figures in relative risk format.

Hence, instead of sharing the laughable 3.59% figure, they proudly declared a 91.1% vaccine efficacy (VE)! That relative risk figure, of course, blissfully ignores the actual infection rates. In reality, 99.63% of BNT162b2 recipients remained COVID-free, as did 96.41% of the placebo subjects.

Which, once again, means the actual alleged reduction in COVID infection risk offered by BNT162b2 was less than 4% - a far cry from 91.1%!

BNT162b2: Unsafe and Ineffective.

The Death Figures

Despite being by far the most important outcome - and the most definitive - the authors gave overall mortality a few brief lines in the main paper. 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 (Table S4)."

As that last bracketed entry evinces, further details about the deaths were shunted into the supplementary material which, as noted, has to be downloaded separately from the medrxiv.org site.

Before we discuss Table S4, let's break down what we just read above.

After 6 months, the group receiving the "life-saving" BNT162b2 actually suffered one more death than the placebo group.

Let's present that in relative risk format, the same format dishonest authorities and shady drug companies prefer:

Risk of death in BNT162b2 group during blinded period: +7%

But it didn't end there. And after unblinding, another 5 participants died, all of whom had now received BNT162b2.

So all up, 20 BNT162b2 subjects died, compared to 14 of the placebo subjects. In relative terms, the death toll was 43% higher among BNT162b2 subjects, but of course we don't know the true relative risk because the researchers don't tell us the numbers of people remaining in each group by the time these 5 additional deaths occurred. To calculate updated absolute and relative risks we'd need to know how many subjects were in each group at this point of the unblinding process, but in keeping with the terribly sketchy nature of the paper, that data isn't supplied.

It's worth remembering Pfizer is an immensely wealthy company, with a market capitalization of $261 billion. This makes it the world's 34th biggest publicly traded company by market cap. And yet this is the kind of slop its researchers present for publication.

When considering the death figures, it's also worth remembering BNT162b2 is the same overhyped concoction that compliant researchers, the fakestream media and our hopelessly corrupt and sleazy governments have told us ad nauseum is 95% effective!

While BNT162b2 is 100% effective at generating obscene profits for Pfizer and BioNTech, in terms of preventing COVID-19 and saving lives it's a complete dud.

Table S4 is an interesting read.

It claims there were 0 "COVID" deaths in the BNT162b2 group, and 2 in the placebo group. But underneath that, we see a listing for "COVID pneumonia," for which 1 death occurred in the BNT162b2 group, and 0 in the placebo group.

So the overall death count for deaths attributed to COVID-19 is 1 in the BNT162b2 group, and 2 in the placebo group. Or, in absolute terms, 0.0045% of the BNT162b2 group allegedly experienced COVID death, compared to 0.0091% of the placebo group.

Or to put it another way, your chance of avoiding COVID death based on these figures was 99.995% in the drug group, and 99.990% in the placebo group.

These figures would be cause for hearty laughter if they didn't pertain to a dangerous drug that has in fact already been rolled out around the world.

It's also worth reiterating that out of 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of group assignment, a mere 3 died from COVID-19.

COVID-19, you might recall, is the supposedly super-deadly disease that has led to travel bans, lockdowns, mask mandates, a global poison dart campaign, global censorship, and countless violent police assaults against peaceful protestors.

We're told this piss-ant virus has caused some 4 million deaths around the world, but in a controlled clinical setting with limits to how far even shady drug companies can diddle the death figures, we see an alleged COVID death rate among 44,486 reasonably healthy recruits of 0.0067%.

Keep that pathetic figure in mind next time you see heavily-armed and clearly sociopathic Victorian cops in riot gear calling unarmed anti-lockdown protestors "pussies," before firing potentially lethal projectiles upon an unarmed crowd of peaceful protestors containing women and children.


Australian police, stalking, harassing and violently bashing innocent, unarmed people in order to 'protect" them from a virus with a 99.85% survival rate.

By unblinding the trial at such an early juncture, Pfizer and BioNTech are disintegrating the placebo group way ahead of schedule. This means that, as the number of placebo subjects diminish over time, there will be less and less long-term drug versus placebo data available. Given the already diverging and unfavourable death figures for BNT162b2, that works in Pfizer's and BioNTech's favour. The last thing they want is abundant and robust longer-term data showing a significantly higher death rate among BNT162b2 recipients.

Moderna, by the way, have pulled the same trick. A recent announcement by the company revealed that, as of 13 April 2021, all placebo participants had been offered the Moderna COVID-19 'vaccine' and 98% of them had received the drug.

Conclusion

COVID-19 is an egregious sham, and so is the dangerous mRNA concoction known as BNT162b2. After 6 months, even company-sponsored researchers have presented data showing a higher death rate among BNT162b2 recipients compared to those lucky and/or smart enough to get a placebo.

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


*Researcher affiliations are as follows:

Nicholas Kitchin, Judith Absalon, Alejandra Gurtman, Stephen Lockhart, John L. Perez, Ruth Bailey, Kena A. Swanson, Xia Xu, Kenneth Koury, Salim Bouguermouh, Warren V. Kalina, David Cooper, Qi Yang, Paul Liberator, Philip R. Dormitzer, William C. Gruber, Kathrin U. Jansen - Vaccine Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, Hurley, UK/Pearl River, NY/Collegeville, PA;
Satrajit Roychoudhury - Global Product Development, Pfizer Inc, Peapack, NJ.
Dina B. Tresnan, Susan Mather - Worldwide Safety, Safety Surveillance and Risk Management, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT/Collegeville, PA.
Ozlem Türeci, Uğur Şahin - BioNTech, Mainz, Germany.

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.