Comments 1 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
Dr. Naomi Wolf: "[Pfizer] hid, they concealed, they redacted from disclosure, forced by court, the fact that they were processing so many adverse events in the first three months... that they had to hire 2,400 new employees. They hid that; they concealed it... the volume of bad outcomes, dangerous outcomes... there were so many [that] they couldn't keep up with it with their own staff."
I can't figure out how to post the link here but go to Market-Ticker.org and look at the story "I'm just going to leave this here".
Pfizer Trial Fraud: The House of Cards Shakes
Arnie1974
@Arnie1974
·
10h
Pfizer, Moderna, and Their Enablers Should Be Indicted: Their Behavior Is the Clear-Cut Exemplification of Fraud
Dr. Robert Malone: "[The GAO Report and Pfizer Documents show] that a lot of the propaganda and information that's been pushed on us about vaccine efficacy and safety is fraudulent. I don't know how else to say it. That is the legal word for when you know you are saying things that are not true."
Arnie1974
@Arnie1974
·
7h
@rwmalonemd Violates the Nuremberg Code: Pfizer Clearly Knew the Risks of the Shot and Failed to Provide Fully-Informed Consent
Dr. Robert Malone: "Disclosing to patients fully and completely what the potential risks are [is a staple of medical ethics], and we now have clear documentation that those risks were known, they were extensive, and information about those risks were withheld."
Is Subject #12312982 the Key to Proving Pfizer Vaccine Trial Fraud?
The Story of Augusto Roux
Saline injections are not supposed to have such an aggressive side effects profile. So what exactly was in Pfizer's placebo injection?
On May 24th, the anonymous Twitter account JikkyLeaks claimed that data contained inside the massive Pfizer Documents release shows their vaccine had close to zero efficacy even when it launched. There is some correcting of the raw data required to reach this conclusion, but the raw data alone hints at an efficacy of 53%. The data contradicts Pfizer’s published claims the vaccine was 95% effective, a claim still published on gov.uk domains. The original data and specifically the “95% efficacy” claim was key to getting the vaccines onto global markets around the world. If Pfizer reached this conclusion dishonourably, there could be sizable implications.
At least one other researcher has publicly reached the same results using data contained in the court-ordered Pfizer documents. I have already verified that the data exists, and using very simple public code, that the numbers add up to what Josh and Jikky claim. Understanding what they mean, and the potential implications is what I will now address here.
is pfizer suppressing vaccine adverse events reports in infants?
because it would certainly fit as part of a larger pattern
Welt report uncovers evidence of serious irregularities in the Pfizer phase 3 Comirnaty trial, suggesting systematic attempts to cover up adverse events at the Argentine clinical site ...
The centrepiece of their reporting is patient number 12312982, a 36 year-old Buenos Aires resident named Augusto Roux, who participated in the vaccine arm of the trial and experienced significant adverse reactions following both doses of the vaccine. His most severe symptoms followed the second jab; they included shortness of breath, nausea, fever and darkened urine, and required hospitalisation. Throughout both sets of reactions, he tested negative for Covid. A trial doctor judged his symptoms very likely to be an adverse reaction to vaccination, and there are compelling reasons to think he suffered pericarditis. Roux promptly dropped out of the trial, and his lawyers succeeded in gaining access to internal Pfizer records his case. These reveal that Buenos Aires researchers recorded Roux as testing positive for Covid following dose 1, despite multiple negative PCR tests. To cover for his September hospitalisation, meanwhile, they listed him as suffering from a “severe anxiety attack.”
Welt finds other irregularities in data from the the Argentine clinical site as well. Following the first dose at the end of August, they removed 53 trial participants; internal documents give nothing but vague, contradictory excuses for the purge. Following the second dose, Buenos Aires researchers removed a further 200 participants – two-thirds of all removals across the entire trial.
Irregularities appear to extend beyond the shady Buenos Aires operation. As a friend notes on Twitter, the fact that there were more deaths in the vaccine than the placebo arm of the Pfizer trial has always been considered an awkward coincidence by the fact checkers. Upon closer examination, though, it begins to look like deaths from severe vaccine injuries were actually what put the vaccine arm over the top:
[Pharmacology expert and head of the “Data Based Medicine” network and the vaccine injury support organisation React-19] David Healy has … questions about the trial beyond the Augusto Roux case and other events at Buenos Aires. He wonders about a total of 21 vaccine group deaths that are said to be “not due to vaccination.” In at least two of these deaths, this conclusion doesn’t seem to be fully justified. WELT has documents showing that patient No. 11621327 was found dead in his home three days after the second dose, apparently a stroke. Patient No. 11521497 died 20 days after vaccination, diagnosed with cardiac arrest. “According to the current understandings, these two cases would be attributed to vaccination,” says Berlin-based pharmaceutical specialist Susanne Wagner, “especially since the US health authority CDC is currently investigating strokes in vaccinated people and it is known that blood clots can trigger sudden deaths following vaccination.”
I think we have a lot of newbies experiencing their weed paranoia for the first time with regards to covid. Fauci and big pharma are cunts too, but I believe they've had assistance.
90% of the population here, of well educated people,
As far as creative drug, totally disagree
What's well educated? Education has no bearing on being high either. I've tended to find if I'm sober that an educated person is just as dumb as the redneck that doesn't even have a GED while high. Honestly people that "think" they're smarter are usually the dumbest on weed is my observation.
WookieMan says
As far as creative drug, totally disagree
This. Thinking that pot makes you creative is like the drunk at the bar that thinks he now has James Bond appeal to the ladies.
Being CONSTANTLY stoned certainly doesn't help, but screwing up your neurons DOES make you creative,
richwicks says
Being CONSTANTLY stoned certainly doesn't help, but screwing up your neurons DOES make you creative,
I like to make the comparison here to old style computer punch cards.
Imagine you have a stack of 2,000 punch cards, each card is a line of code. That line may be an equation, a line of graphic, or just text. Now imagine you run the batch and it works perfectly. Now you take out a single card and it still works. Next, you take out 5 random cards, and the program still works, but an obscure piece of text is missing from a label. Since the program still runs, would you conclude that randomly taking out cards does no damage, or just damage you can tolerate so far? Now take out a handful of cards from the middle, shuffle them up, and put them back in the stack. Do you think this will improve the program in "creative" ways?
Vaccine in Preclinical Studies?
Evidence of Scientific and Regulatory Fraud
April 26, 2022
By: Sasha Latypova
I can't figure out how to post the link here but go to Market-Ticker.org and look at the story "I'm just going to leave this here".
Also : https://jessicar.substack.com/p/this-took-all-day-and-it-is-worth?s=r&source=patrick.net