Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 Trial - April 21 - Debate with "The Real Truther" Transcript

An occasion for everyone to suffer my French accent, and a debate which could have been of better technical and argumentative quality but has at least the merit to exist.

As people following us on Twitter are aware, we have been looking for people sharp enough on the “propaganda side” to understand our main “Pfizer trial points” - on the basis that if the FDA isn’t reacting to our data, and that we all agree in our small circle that the trial was corrupt, the situation won’t advance much.

As expected, the quest is difficult, but has some ethnological and analytical value.

The following is a transcript of our debate with Twitter’s “The Real Truther” and his co-hosts on the Pfizer Trial. In this case, with the account “_SpaceMouse_” as a good part of the hosts already had blocked our current account.

Part 1 can be accessed here (and its sole interest is to observe how fast a Funk runs from a debate after losing miserably phase 1 by writing, with totally out of topic comments). Part 2 (during which the transcript below took place) can be accessed here.

A cut version containing only the relevant extracts (26 minutes 12 seconds) can be accessed on this .MP3.

Shortly summarizing the main argument we heard in this space, “we don’t care much, even if the trial is fraudulent, because we have plenty of real world data to feel safe about the vaccine”.

We won’t lose time right now commenting on the numerous attempts to redirect the debate, or incorrect statements made by our debate opponents (aside for Wesley Wilson who always remained of good faith), you can observe that for yourself below.

We stand, for now in the (limited) hope that they finally understood the issues we advanced, and that they will perform the claims verification they committed to, so the debate can progress.

Your critics & comments are welcome shall you have any.

---

*Non related comments* - Starts “part 2” at 00:02:25

The Real Truther:

So let’s see, let’s get some people in who haven’t spoken. Let’s see. Who is next ? I think Space has been waiting. Space, I’m sorry, you were like the first person on, speaking of mouse, mice.

Space Mouse:

Indeed. Does this work ?

The Real Truther:

Are you part of the Jikkyleaks’ crew?

Space Mouse:

Yeah, definitely.

The Real Truther:

Yeah what ?

Space Mouse:

I was saying, “Yes, definitely”. I’ll have to apologize in advance, I’m French, and my accent may be quite terrible. Among my many flaws.

The Real Truther:

No, no, you’re fine, I was just joking with you. But.. you’re calling from France right now?

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah

The Real Truther:

Awesome. All right, what do yo got for us tonight?

Space Mouse:

I was intending to discuss with you a few deep anomalies I noticed in the Pfizer trial data. If you’re interested in debating that.

The Real Truther:

Euuh… I mean, yeah, again, I’ll try to understand what you’re saying, do my best, and other people are here too as well.. So yeah, go ahead.

Space Mouse:

Fantastic. So, to quickly frame the conversation for people who haven’t followed that, the “Pfizer vaccine” was authorized after a clinical trial involving 44 000 people, and the efficacy was judged on 170 COVID cases. So far I believe we will all agree on that?

The Real Truther:

I’m sorry?

Space Mouse:

So… I was asking if we had disagreements so far. To leave you time to answer.

The Real Truther:

I don’t have everything in front of me. I know that the efficacy against symptomatic infection was about 88% or in the 90% pile, and against… almost all the severe cases were, you know, in the Placebo group, and almost all the symptomatic infections were in the Placebo group.

But yeah. I don’t know the exact numbers but if someone else has it, that’s fine. But what’s your point?

Space Mouse:

Ok. In any case we have a lot of controls, and it’s registered, it’ll be easy to check. My point is that if the efficacy has been judged on 170 cases, there are concerning symptoms on the fact that the local and central testing PCR side of the subjects are disbalanced in favor of the BNT group, meaning that the BNT were less tested that the Placebo - which as you imagine can impact the end results. And that we have as well symptoms that the data hasn’t been very well administered by Icon, the subcontractor of Pfizer, namely that subjects have been deleted from the database, again concerning very abnormal sites.

So we can deepen whichever of these arguments you would like and argue, if you want.

The Real Truther:

I have a little trouble understanding… Euh, Sense, go ahead.

Sense strand:

I think what… Again… Mouse, what specific side effects are you referring to?

Space Mouse:

I’m not discussing side effects, I’m discussing efficacy calculation right now, but as you know the PHPMT documents…

Sense strand:

Well, you can stop. You don’t even need, you don’t have to discuss that because it’s been measured… the efficacy has been measured in real world population studies. So… You don’t have to rely on the initial studies, do you?

Space Mouse:

Of course I do have to rely on the original study… First of all, every…

Sense strand:

No. Why?

Space Mouse:

every study. every study, let me finish thanks, every study assessing the efficacy a posterior is quoting this one, which is one of the most quoted of the last years, if not the most…

The Real Truther:

We have studies on real world data since. You know. 77% of the World has gotten vaccined, billions…

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah, I agree. My point is that you hardly can find a more controlled condition than a clinical trial. If you can’t rely on a clinical trial data, how can you rely on real world data ?

The Real Truther:

Well, we rely on the clinical trial …

Sense strand:

Because you can.

The Real Truther:

… but we also rely on real world data because from all the studies afterwards, and all the actual data from all the countries showing that the hospitalization and deaths were significantly higher in the unvaxxinated in all countries in the world with 0 exceptions. And so… that’s significant right? I mean, that gives us a picture, that all paints vaccine efficacy. The trial… 3 years ago or whatever when it happened, it is not our only source of information on the vaccine. You know. The same thing than the measles vaccine. We’ve had 50 years of data and studies. The same thing has happened with COVID, with the last 3 years… We’ve had the worldwide replicated data and studies that all say the same thing. These are from researchers that never communicated with each other, never met each other, but they are coming up with the exact same results everywhere in different countries. It’s impossible for that to not prove vaccine efficacy, unless you can prove some worldwide global conspiracy among thousands if not millions of people.

Space Mouse:

That’s a lot of points to answer. And a lot of claims. But first of all, euh, about “Real World…

Sense strand:

He is right tho.

Space Mouse:

… data”, how would I say that… the reliability of the real world data is conditioned by the state efficacy to collect and to reflect those data. I’m much more interested in clinical trial conditions…

The Real Truther:

Well, I understand, you…

Space Mouse:

… where the subjects are at least supposed to be more accurately traced. We can debate of course about real world data but that requires to have in depth knowledge of the state’s data, or at least of the study.

The Real Truther:

So, in the trial, you know, almost all the severe cases were in the placebo, and almost all the symptomatic infections were in the Placebo. Do you agree with that?

Space Mouse:

Euh… No. We have to define symptomatic infection first.

The Real Truther:

It’s defined in the study. Actually showing symptoms. Infected with COVID and showing symptoms. I don’t know… It’s pretty obvious what it means.

Space Mouse:

Not exactly.. yeah, showing symptoms, there is a very small difference between the arms in the study. Having a PCR…

The Real Truther:

It’s not about PCRs… It’s not about PCRs…

Space Mouse:

No, but… Having a positive PCR with symptoms, I agree with you there is a very visible difference between the arms.

The Real Truther:

Ok, yes.

Space Mouse:

In terms of “just Covid symptoms”… there is a very insignificant difference between the arms.

The Real Truther:

Right. So there is a significant difference showing that the unvaccinated people were COVID with symptoms more, getting severe COVID more, and then the real World studies and the real world data all backed it up, although you’re saying you can’t trust because of some flaws everything in every single country for some reason… that’s fine… but, so, then… where is the issue?

Space Mouse:

The issue is precisely that to establish the efficacy conditions, the subjects needed symptoms, and a positive PCR. The subjects, BNT, were tested in 39% of the cases when they were visiting at the local laboratory, and 45% of the time when they were placebo. Which is a p-value of 0.000055.

The Real Truther:

All right. Wes, I’ll bring you in to respond here.

Wesley Wilson:

Yeah, so…

Compute My Head Strap N95:

Just real quick… Truther, you’re really quiet buddy… Can barely hear you.

The Real Truther:

Oh, sorry guys. Let me try to adjust my mic. Thank you very much for that, and Wes, go ahead…

Wesley Wilson:

Yeah, so, I think it’s coming down to what the study is trying to show, and what it’s trying to say. In terms of “pure numbers” - I’m assuming we’re talking about the New England Journal Of Medicine results, from December 10, 2020 - in terms of numbers what Mouse is saying is not wrong, so I get where Mouse is coming from, but what the study is trying to show… is… what is the finish line… and so what the study was saying was… I think this is just [unclear] cause, you know, I understand the accent a little better because I’m Canadian, so .. j’habite Toronto .. so, the difference here, is like, we’re talking, is like 95% protection against contracting symptomatic COVID-19, right, so it’s those two variables. Do you have COVID-19, and do you have symptoms? And so, the paper…

Space Mouse:

Yes, and you would…

Wesley Wilson:

… Right, so the paper wasn’t making the argument… the results weren’t making the argument that it was gonna stop COVID-19 testing - you from being tested Positive to COVID-19, it was showing 95% protection against contracting symptomatic COVID-19. So, if you change the goalpost for what the study.. for what the published study was showing.. then sure, it’s not an effective mediator towards a different condition the study wasn’t measuring. That’s true. But the study was saying that it provided 95% protection against contracting symptomatic COVID-19, in patients 16 or older.

Space Mouse:

To just add a little precision, 7 days post dose 2, but yeah… and without deviation.. but we agree on the basis.

Wesley Wilson:

[unclear]

Space Mouse:

Sorry?

Wesley Wilson:

You’re correct.

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah.. so.. my point is not exactly that the study target is flawed, although that would be arguable as well. My point is that there are flaws in the testing between arms which are showing an hidden unblinding of the subjects. That’s the only explanation you can find to have such dis-balance between the testing rates - and what I haven’t precised so far is that this dis-balance is mainly located in 16 sites in the United States. Which is further anomaly. As you probably know, you can identify who received the BNT or the Placebo with a PCR test. That has been published since.

Sense strand:

What’s your issue with unblinding of the test once it was finished ?

Space Mouse:

No no, I’m not saying “once it was finished”, I’m saying “while the trial was ongoing”.

Wesley Wilson:

By testing, he’s saying they would unblind yourself, by running a test. Is that correct?

Space Mouse:

Correct.

Wesley Wilson:

Ok, I thought that’s what you were saying. So I mean, I wanna pose this question to you. Euh… and before we get to this idea of “do you trust people or not”, the people who were… you know, the person in the lab who was doing the COVID test, and their connection to a larger clinical trial, cause clinical trial are run by large groups of teams, and back & forth between these peoples and those things, because we get into that kind of argument, cause that’s just “do you trust people or not?”, and that’s a different argument. If you don’t trust this trial because you believe that for this vaccine, they may have been unblinded, it sounds like this is a bad trial design, and that you shouldn’t trust this trial, and instead of trusting this trial, then maybe, why not trust the real world data? If you think trials are [unclear] environment, if you think it is an imperfect environment, then arguably, by.. from your understanding, it would be a bad trial to prove anything, and then the next best source of data would be real world data…

Space Mouse:

That’s not exactly my point. My point is that I would like both sides - and I don’t think this perception of “sides” is valid, to at least agree on the basis, which is that we need perfect transparency to be able to trust the real world data. At the moment, and given The Real Truther excellent expose of…

Sharky:

Space Mouse, you’re pulling away from the mic. Nobody can understand you.

Space Mouse:

Ah, sorry, is it better?

The Real Truther:

That’s better.

Sharky:

It is.

Space Mouse:

Ok, sorry. I was saying that given the great summary of the flaws of the narrative that The Real Truther highlighted as introduction, euh… we can agree that the state’s perception of these vaccines can be questioned in the Western Occidental [unclear]…

Sharky:

No idea what you’re saying.

The Real Truther:

You’re fading, we can’t hear you. By the way, is my mic better guys ?

Sharky:

Yeah

The Real Truther:

Ok, I switched mics.

Space Mouse:

That’s unfortunate. I’ll have to switch as well if you can’t hear me. Not better?

The Real Truther:

That’s better. We can hear you now.

Space Mouse:

Ok, so if it’s better.. The point I was trying to make is that we need, at least… we should agree on the fact that we need at least to agree on the conclusion of the studies on which we share the open data. If the study is fraudulent, indeed, we should turn to other sources. But if the study which has allowed the EUA of the Pfizer vaccine is fraudulent, I would say that we have a problem to investigate.

Wesley Wilson:

Euh.. in principle. In principle…

The Real Truther:

If it was fraudulent, yes..

Wesley Wilson:

In principle you’re right..

The Real Truther:

But it wasn’t… yeah…

Wesley Wilson:

But I have to say, I don’t think there is evidence that it was fraudulent. It isn’t just because it is theoretically possible to unblind somebody [unclear]…

The Real Truther:

You’re fading too, Wil…

Sharky:

Wes, you’re fading as well…

Space Mouse:

I’m afraid it’s a Twitter problem more than a microphone problem.

The Real Truther:

Elon Musk, man… They hate us tonight!

Sharky:

Sorry boys. Strikes again. [unclear] wants to talk about our flat earth theories.

The Real Truther:

Hum… Yeah, I don’t think… I agree that there is no evidence there are no evidence that the trial was fraudulent. But I also agree that is there was evidence that the trial was fraudulent, yes, that would be a problem. I think nobody is gonna dispute that. But I don’t think anything you said or anything anyone has brought up or shown has been… you know… a bit… evidence of so called fraudulent study… hum… Sense… Do you wanna reply ?

Sense strand:

Yeah.. my reply would be that he brought up 16 locations… and like, it was only done in 16 locations, that’s was a small subset. That’s … That’s a large study.

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah, I agree. There is 153 sites. It’s just one point that I’m bringing as an introduction to be clear. There are several fraudulent patterns in the trial, and it’s overall impacting the entire result.

Sense strand:

Those were already evaluated, and determined not to be effective on the results.

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah, and the evaluation was done in 20 days by the FDA and if you ask them for the code they used to for the said review, they mostly used the code communicated by the sponsor, so…

Unclear Speaker:

What are you trying to say?

Space Mouse:

I’m trying to say that we should agree on the fact that this data needs cautious examination. I believe Wes Wilson, or someone else in this space, has the skills to go through the .XPT files and to check that my claims aren’t baseless, at least on their merit, meaning that what I’m saying “is there” is there. If it is, we can resume further debate [unclear]…

The Real Truther:

You’re going off again… We can’t hear you, sorry. All right… look… Euh… There is other people who would like to get on… I do appreciate your input, about the trial, and it was a good discussion about that…

Sharky:

Truth, you’re gone too…

The Real Truther:

Jesus, can you guy hear me… Now ? Can you hear me ..?

Sharky:

Yeah…

The Real Truther:

What the f… What is going on, here? This is awfull.. Euh.. Let’s move on to get other people in. I appreciate Mouse, you coming on… Right at the time we were talking about Mice too… So, I was hoping we could…

Space Mouse:

Excellent. Me as well.

The Real Truther:

Are you part of the Jikkyleaks Mouse Club ?

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah, as I told you. It’s not a “club”. The basic of the club is “verify your facts and source everything you say”.

The Real Truther:

But you agree with Jikkyleaks…

Roast Master General:

He is CanceledMouse. That’s another account.

The Real Truther:

So, Jikkyleaks believes that doctors were murdering unvaccinated patients to increase the numbers of the unvaccinated to increase the death rates. Do you believe in that conspiracy theory?

Space Mouse:

Hum.. I wouldn’t say it’s a conspiracy theory, I would say …

The Real Truther:

Wow! Ah..

Space Mouse:

.. it needs to be reviewed cautiously. In France for example ..

The Real Truther:

Wait, so, it needs to be reviewed that doctors were intentionally murdering people…

Space Mouse:

No no, I’m not saying that they were doing it “intentionally”. I’m saying that the treatments and…

The Real Truther:

Hmmm…

Space Mouse:

… the early treatments have been paralyzed.

The Real Truther:

No no no no. That’s a separate argument that we can talk about. I’m talking about specifically targeting unvaccinated to give them less care so that they would die on purpose. That’s a Jikkyleaks conspiracy theory that he has shared. I can show you the screenshots.

Space Mouse:

Do so, please.

The Real Truther:

Do you also believe that the flu is intentionally … euh…

Space Mouse:

No no, but one subject

The Real Truther:

[unclear] the government…

Space Mouse:

One at a time… Can you…

Sharky:

Truther, I’m trying to..

The Real Truther:

Yeah, you can try to get it. So that’s one conspiracy theory he has. The other one is that the flu is… you know… controlled by the government in order to sell flu vaccines.

Space Mouse:

You know, I’m not very interested in debating what other people what other people are putting out. I’m interested in debating what I put out.

The Real Truther:

I understand. But you’re saying you’re part of his group.

Space Mouse:

No no. I’m saying I’m part of the group and the basis of the group is that we are individuals who like to source what we claim… And to disagree all the time on various topics… so… it’s not “a club”.

Roast Master General:

No, It’s a …

Space Mouse:

It’s not a cult either…

Roast Master General:

… cult… Jikkylinks is a cult. Brook. Jackson. Is in this cult.

Space Mouse:

Yeah yeah… Again, you can proceed to ad hominem attacks.

The Real Truther:

All right, all right, he is… he subscribes to some serious extremist positions that have no evidence to back them up, but we can… I think we would all agree on that.

*Conversation is ended by demoting “Space Mouse” to listeners*

---

*Non related comments* - Back at 00:29:00

Roast Master General:

You know that was CanceledMouse, right ?

The Real Truther:

Euh… No, that wasn’t CanceledMouse. Was it?

Unidentified speaker (Hugo Fortier or Unethical Skeptic):

The French guy was CanceledMouse.

The Real Truther:

But his username wasn’t CanceledMouse !

Unidentified speaker (Hugo Fortier or Unethical Skeptic):

I know. He must have another account.

The Real Truther:

How do you know it’s him?

Roast Master General:

Exactly same profile. Exactly same profile.

The Real Truther:

Oh my God. Interesting.

Unidentified speaker (Hugo Fortier or Unethical Skeptic):

He has the exact same picture, background thing and everything.

The Real Truther:

Well he is talking very differently. He talked to me very differently than he did on Twitter. Interesting. All right.

Unidentified speaker (Hugo Fortier or Unethical Skeptic):

So did everybody.

The Real Truther:

How many accounts do these people have ?

Roast Master General:

Loads ! It’s a fucking Mouse Army, they literally breed like Mice !

The Real Truther:

Hey, Roast, you sit down. You have got 45 accounts ! But still… What’s with the mice?! Now I hate mice !

---

*Non related comments* - Back at 01:15:50 talking about the resource “Covidresearch.net” - a Zotero repository they constituted.

Sense strand:

In the beginning of the nest I posted the Israeli study, with like 50, you know, thousands plus participants on, on the, euh… Pfizer… euh… Initial Pfizer campaign, that I was… The one we were talking with Space Mouse. That one I just pulled straight from CovidResearch.net because it was easy to… just search for it… so…

Sharky:

Brillant. That’s absolutely great. I never gonna stop being thankful to you guys doing all of this, and making it so easy for the rest of us. It’s just… amazing !

*At this stage, annoyed about (half) hearing the (deeply flawed) Israeli study quoted while it wasn’t mentioned in audio, went back in to re-discuss this point*

---

*Non related comments* - Back at 01:36:35

Roast Master General:

Hum, CanceledMouse you’re next.

Space Mouse:

Hi again ! Is the sound working ?

John Michael C MD:

No it’s you.. but, you’re free to talk sir.

Space Mouse:

Yeah ok. I was almost falling asleep when I heard that someone had addressed one of my arguments - so I wanted a chance to answer. I don’t know if it was “Dr John” or “Truth be told”?

Sharky:

Say that again?

Space Mouse:

I don’t know if “Dr John” or “Truth be Told” had addressed one of my arguments. I heard you cheering, but I only heard only half of the argument.

Sharky:

Hum… Dr John? One of you?

John Michael C MD:

I don’t know what the argument was…

Sharky:

Ok, then, can’t be you !

John Michael C MD:

The other Dr Jon, do you know what he is talking about?

Dr Jon:

I have no idea what he is talking about. I wasn’t even here yet, whenever he was speaking, cause I haven’t heard this guy.

Sharky:

Ok, what was your argument again?

John Michael C MD:

He came in. He was talking about how the Pfizer trial was fraudulent, hum, among other things, and that he is a follower of Jikkyleaks and that a lot of people died by Doctors’ hands, etcetera, but you guys take it from here…

Dr Jon:

I can’t [unclear] …

Sharky:

And Brook Jackson !

Dr Jon:

… but the former, but yeah, none was purposely killing people, or prescribing them Remdevisir that would hurt them, or putting them on ventilators, or.. I mean, that stuff. It’s definitely not true. But… and I don’t think hospitals were - you know - doing this. I know there was some stuff like.. they were looking at palliative care and people were going home with kind of medication to help them with pain, and breathing, and whatnot, as well… But I’ve never… You know… If you’ve ever known someone that’s had… you know… COVID, and they’ve got pulmonary scarring and they are not gonna survive, that’s pretty common to give them medications to help them with their worker breathing and things like that… But as far as, you know, make vaccination numbers look better or mortality numbers look a certain way, no… that didn’t happen.

Space Mouse:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. To be clear, my original argument was on the Pfizer trial, only. The debate has been brought on the “doctors’ deaths” after that, and what I was mentioning - what I know - is that in France the prescription of the palliative care medicines have jumped up in the retirement homes, very suspiciously concomitant to the rise of the deaths. Something on which we had very little transparency, and explanations, so far. So I’m not saying “it happened”, I haven’t the proof of that. I’m saying it requires studying, and that I certainly wouldn’t discard the hypothesis.

Dr Jon:

[unclear] …

Sharky:

Go ahead Dr Jon.

Dr Jon:

Very simply. If you’re having more people with terminal diseases who are doing, then wouldn’t it be reasons… wouldn’t it be reasonable that you would then have more palliative care medicine ? Doesn’t that make sense ? It seems if you just reverse, you just reverse which order you mentioned then all of the sudden it makes a lot of sense ?

Space Mouse:

No no, but to be clear, my expertise isn’t in medicine. My expertise is in Forensic & statistics. But you don’t treat a bacterial pneumonia with a palliative care, as far as I know. So, it was poor treatment, at best, and at worst, it was something a bit more criminal. But I’m not qualified, or having studied enough the subject.

Dr Jon:

If you have pneumonia that’s causing you to be severely Hypoxic, and needing you know like 10, 15 liters, you’re not going to survive, most likely. These pneumonia from COVID were not just like bacterial pneumonia, these were scarring [unclear] that would ever get better with a transplant, or… you die. Hum, so.. And especially, as the other doctor John was saying, you know, people that are older are gonna have more co-morbities. As you age, you have V1, which is how much oxygen you can breath in, and ventilate, and breath out, and exchange, it goes down as you age…

*Other non-related arguments to this point I hadn’t brought in and on which I had already stated not to be competent or interested - and other unrelated digressions from other participants*

---

*Non related comments* - Back at 01:53:00

Roast Master General:

Ok… Do we have time for Space Mouse, Truther ?

The Real Truther:

Oh, yes, 5 minutes or so..

Roast Master General:

Ok, Space Mouse, make it quick…

The Real Truther:

Did Sharky fall asleep ? What’s going on here ? 5 minutes guys.

Space Mouse:

I’ll be brief. Of course my sympathy to Dr Jon for his grand-mother, and my thanks to the two “Doctor Jon(s)” for their explanations. My avocation in this case is that we need transparency. Meaning that in France, the political decisions concerning COVID-19 are still covered by military secret and state secret, and that we have absolutely no transparency on what actually happened during that period. So it would be good to open the books, and to look at the facts, as they are. And to understand why the mortality went from 4.5% to 1% in the oldest age groups, for example.

Roast Master General:

Cool.

John Michael C MD:

Nobody here opposes transparency.

Space Mouse:

Excellent. Then thanks to you all. And may we discuss again if we have agreed on the facts I advance.

The Real Truther:

Yeah, come back next week mouse.

Roast Master General:

Yeah, come back next week and we will discuss more then.

The Real Truther:

By the way, that’s something I never thought I would say until…

Roast Master General:

No, me neither…

*Non related comments and space ends*