We have spent more time analyzing Pfizer's B.S. than either the FDA or the CDC, and probably both combined. There is a message in that. (Determining that message is an exercise left for the curious reader!) Also, when in doubt, please recall The Bad Cat's First Pfizer Postulate. Pfizer doesn't make mistakes; they make choices.
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
Excellent article Josh, almost seems like the trial phase was all a façade and just formalities, they were going to approve this evil scam no matter what. This is exactly like the almost 60,000 UNPUBLISHED and DELETED ID#s in VAERS. They know the minutiae will knock out 99.9% of the public from realizing how they perpetrate fraud. https://www.vaersaware.com/unpublished-reports-id-s
Great work Josh and Pierre, let's hope that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has demanded full access to the Pfizer databases, gets the individual data for all trial recruits. That could lead to finding the ultimate fate of those who went "missing".
1) Regarding the protocol deviations, some of those could be fraud opportunities. Only the vaccinated group matters here, as there is no benefit to pfizer to exclude placebo patients. Just to be cynical for a bit:
a) "nasal swab collected when not required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure to take a swab when they visit for their chest pain.
b) "Nasal swab not collected when required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure you record that they had a mild temperature but you didn't swab them.
c) "Revised informed consent not signed": What is this "revised" informed consent? And when was it administered? Could vaccinated participants have AE's, and then they don't want to sign their second round of informed consent anymore? This category is unusually lopsided.
[I don't know how much patient-level data you have here, but ideally, you could see if the "did not sign" group had a higher burden of clinic visits or side effects.]
2) Is there any way to tell if placebo patients' local PCR tests had a higher proportion that were of the "approved" types than did the vaccinated? This would create less burden to need to get a confirming central test to label them as a covid case. But would that be inconsistent with the greater extent of missing central tests among the vaccinated, not among the placebo?
3) Did you guys research that 53 person dropout event at the Argentina site? I can't remember, but I don't see it summarized here.
4) Is there any way to recompute vaccine efficacy based solely on local PCR tests that were NOT at the trial sites? In other words, what happens when only tests that pfizer did not perform are analyzed? Though of course they still would have power over who got those tests to begin with.
5) If you recompute VE not based on the rate of covid, but based on the chance of a given covid case being severe, you end up with only 53% VE. I think this is better, because there is no preventing covid to begin with. Someday you guys are likely to end up recomputing a zero VE.
LMAO ...fizer falsehoods? Are you kidding? Next time just report on fizer true-hoods which I assume will be a completely blank page of nothingness that will still speak volumes.
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
Caught the RTE show live it was fantastic but it's awesome to have a text collection and references to link to as well... makes me irate every time with these fraud stories & reminder we are ruled by criminal nitwits.
Big time kudos & thanks for incredible research truly in the public interest y'all rock!!! <3
May 3, 2023·edited May 3, 2023Liked by Josh Guetzkow
It is difficult for me to compare the table summarising Central vs Local PCR tests with the table showing the Positive PCR not counted listed by "Visit/Internal"giIt. It would be useful to see the same breakdown by "Visit/Internal" when distinguishing between Central vs Local PCR tests.
The thing that jumped out at me for the Positive PCR Cases not counted as COVID Cases. These are not simply people who had Covid-similar symptoms after vaccination. These are trial participants who had a positive PCR test!
1-6 days after Dose 2:
Total Positive: Placebo 19 (32% not counted); Treatment 6 (100% not counted)
and
Dose 2 visit:
Total Positive: Placebo 90 (87% not counted); Treatment 73 (96% not counted)
How can a PCR test be more prone to giving a false positive at dose 2 visit or in immediate aftermath of dose 2???
This post is a valuable resource summarising the various inconsistencies of the original Pfizer trials and provides links to more detailed articles on those various aspects. Great work, Josh!
Am looking forward to watching the Rounding the Earth podcast:
i remember when i first read how Pfizer was going to do the study they talked about a triple blinding.
it might have been blinded from the trial participant that got the jabs or placebos at the time, but i don't believe the double masking nor triple masking now.
i was impressed that they would keep their statisticians blinded, but now. NO.
I've just watched the "The Nitty Gritty of Pfizer's Falsehoods" discussion on Rumble. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what was (accidentally I'm sure) said that was wrong by The Daily Clout, and what it should have been?
Comirnasty.
We have spent more time analyzing Pfizer's B.S. than either the FDA or the CDC, and probably both combined. There is a message in that. (Determining that message is an exercise left for the curious reader!) Also, when in doubt, please recall The Bad Cat's First Pfizer Postulate. Pfizer doesn't make mistakes; they make choices.
MURDERNA
Excellent article Josh, almost seems like the trial phase was all a façade and just formalities, they were going to approve this evil scam no matter what. This is exactly like the almost 60,000 UNPUBLISHED and DELETED ID#s in VAERS. They know the minutiae will knock out 99.9% of the public from realizing how they perpetrate fraud. https://www.vaersaware.com/unpublished-reports-id-s
Great work Josh and Pierre, let's hope that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has demanded full access to the Pfizer databases, gets the individual data for all trial recruits. That could lead to finding the ultimate fate of those who went "missing".
Several suggestions/comments:
1) Regarding the protocol deviations, some of those could be fraud opportunities. Only the vaccinated group matters here, as there is no benefit to pfizer to exclude placebo patients. Just to be cynical for a bit:
a) "nasal swab collected when not required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure to take a swab when they visit for their chest pain.
b) "Nasal swab not collected when required": Have an adverse event you need to exclude? Just make sure you record that they had a mild temperature but you didn't swab them.
c) "Revised informed consent not signed": What is this "revised" informed consent? And when was it administered? Could vaccinated participants have AE's, and then they don't want to sign their second round of informed consent anymore? This category is unusually lopsided.
[I don't know how much patient-level data you have here, but ideally, you could see if the "did not sign" group had a higher burden of clinic visits or side effects.]
2) Is there any way to tell if placebo patients' local PCR tests had a higher proportion that were of the "approved" types than did the vaccinated? This would create less burden to need to get a confirming central test to label them as a covid case. But would that be inconsistent with the greater extent of missing central tests among the vaccinated, not among the placebo?
3) Did you guys research that 53 person dropout event at the Argentina site? I can't remember, but I don't see it summarized here.
4) Is there any way to recompute vaccine efficacy based solely on local PCR tests that were NOT at the trial sites? In other words, what happens when only tests that pfizer did not perform are analyzed? Though of course they still would have power over who got those tests to begin with.
5) If you recompute VE not based on the rate of covid, but based on the chance of a given covid case being severe, you end up with only 53% VE. I think this is better, because there is no preventing covid to begin with. Someday you guys are likely to end up recomputing a zero VE.
LMAO ...fizer falsehoods? Are you kidding? Next time just report on fizer true-hoods which I assume will be a completely blank page of nothingness that will still speak volumes.
Caught the RTE show live it was fantastic but it's awesome to have a text collection and references to link to as well... makes me irate every time with these fraud stories & reminder we are ruled by criminal nitwits.
Big time kudos & thanks for incredible research truly in the public interest y'all rock!!! <3
I could never pronounce Pfizer's product so I call it Cinderella.
It is difficult for me to compare the table summarising Central vs Local PCR tests with the table showing the Positive PCR not counted listed by "Visit/Internal"giIt. It would be useful to see the same breakdown by "Visit/Internal" when distinguishing between Central vs Local PCR tests.
The thing that jumped out at me for the Positive PCR Cases not counted as COVID Cases. These are not simply people who had Covid-similar symptoms after vaccination. These are trial participants who had a positive PCR test!
1-6 days after Dose 2:
Total Positive: Placebo 19 (32% not counted); Treatment 6 (100% not counted)
and
Dose 2 visit:
Total Positive: Placebo 90 (87% not counted); Treatment 73 (96% not counted)
How can a PCR test be more prone to giving a false positive at dose 2 visit or in immediate aftermath of dose 2???
This post is a valuable resource summarising the various inconsistencies of the original Pfizer trials and provides links to more detailed articles on those various aspects. Great work, Josh!
Am looking forward to watching the Rounding the Earth podcast:
https://rumble.com/v2k9k6g-the-nitty-gritty-of-pfizers-falsehoods-round-table-w-josh-guetzkow.html
I saw Bourla interviewed this afternoon on Fox Business. He's promoting new cancer drugs and hopes for warp speed approval from the FDA.
i remember when i first read how Pfizer was going to do the study they talked about a triple blinding.
it might have been blinded from the trial participant that got the jabs or placebos at the time, but i don't believe the double masking nor triple masking now.
i was impressed that they would keep their statisticians blinded, but now. NO.
I can remember when fish was good for you. 😐
In case this is helpful. Covid 19 3/2/21,antibodies 4/16/21 250, 2nd 3/30/21 DOH ,antibodies 10/26/21 >2500 , ,3rd
Publix 11/12/2021,, antibodies 12/10/21 247, antibodies 2/1/22 151, antibodies 5/2/22 126, antibodies 8/11/22 163 , Walgreens 11/26/22 moderna bivalent
Thanks so much for all this brilliant work.
I've just watched the "The Nitty Gritty of Pfizer's Falsehoods" discussion on Rumble. I wonder if you could clarify exactly what was (accidentally I'm sure) said that was wrong by The Daily Clout, and what it should have been?