Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 Trial - April 23 - Recapitulation Video
Some readers asked for an abstract of our data dives, so here it comes in video format.
A mouse produced, based on our script, the following video that this Substack accompanies as collection of sources (click here or on the miniature to access it on Rumble).
It recapitulates, as shortly as possible, what someone who hasn’t read our past articles and the others we referenced should know about the Pfizer/BioNTech fraudulent trial, and where to find data backing the facts we expose.
We stand by the fact that every point we advance is based on the sponsors’ own data - and are ready to debate whoever would argue in good faith on the validity of our interpretations.
Transcription & Sources
A clinical trial is a large scale Scientific experiment by which the manufacturer of a product intended for human medication is testing it to verify that it's safe and effective.
It is in theory composed of 4 phases, which are explained on the National Institute of Health's website1.
During phase 1, primary tests are performed on a small population of volunteers (20 to 80), and are testing the safety & dosages.
During phase 2, a larger group of people (typically 300) is used to determine if the drug is effective.
During phase 3, a much larger group is used to gather more data about effectiveness & potential side effects.
During phase 4, after the FDA approved the drug, the treatment effectiveness & safety is monitored through the population.
Why do we bring this up? Because we would like to help the viewers of this video to understand how Pfizer & BioNTech performed one of the largest frauds of all times, by falsifying every result, at every step of the process, in order to allow a completely unsafe and ineffective product, the BNT162b2 later known as "Comirnaty", to get to the market.
There is more to say about the Pfizer BioNTech trial than we could possibly bring up in a short video tailored for Social Media, but we will try to make you aware of the key details you should know, and where to find reliable data on this most censored subject.
Let's start with phase 1. The results are mainly presented in a NEJM study2 by Edward Walsh and other authors, including the BioNTech boss, Uğur Şahin. According to them, between May 4, and June 22, 2020, a total of 332 healthy adults (men and non-pregnant women) underwent screening at four sites in the United States.
A total of 195 participants were randomly assigned to 13 groups comprising 15 participants each. In each group, 12 participants received vaccine and 3 received placebo.
The products tested were all effective at producing Covid specific antibodies ; but they chose the BNT162b2 30 micrograms because it was the best compromise between efficacy & safety, given that the b1 "caused more fevers".
Phases 2 & 3 were merged together given the exceptional emergency caused by Covid-193.
It was determined that 44000 participants should be recruited worldwide, to allow the scientists to observe at least 164 cases. The product would be judged effective if it achieved the prevention of a positive Covid-19 specific PCR test with symptoms, 7 days after the second dose, of 50% or more, while raising no safety red flags.
Phase 34 started in July, and a few months later, on November 14, 2020, the product had demonstrated a 95% efficacy, with only 8 cases observed in the BNT162b2 group against 162 cases in the Placebo group.
No safety concern was raised, therefore the FDA approved the product5. The safe and effective vaccine was massively embraced by the population, and the world was saved.
So what is wrong with that beautiful story ? Well, everything.
First of all it quickly became obvious that the product didn't prevent Covid illness at all6. Red-flags quickly occurred when "cause unknown" became the main cause of death in various places7, and that governments started to use mandates8 to force their population to comply with a doubtful product9 ; violating every human right recognized after the horrors of the nazi experiments during World War 210.
An organization called the "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency"11 hired a lawyer famous for his ability to annoy the pharmaceutical industry called Aaron Siri. Together, they sued the FDA and obtained the release of the clinical trial documents which were intended to stay concealed for decades12.
Many volunteers, doctors, bio-statisticians, lawyers & data scientists, have gathered around the World and have attempted since to make sense of the 300 thousands pages of documents and gigabytes of electronic files made public. Here is what we know :
Phase 1 didn't occur between the dates they said13.
The products didn't cause the number of fevers they say14.
The number of subjects they announced during the protocol versions moved from 840 to 420, then to 630, then to 195, so we don't know how many people really participated15.
The sponsors disregarded concerning adverse effects, which they judged "unrelated" as soon as it wasn't among the fevers and pain at injection sites they expected as "normal"16.
Last but not least the product didn't produce the antibodies they say, and there are serious concerns they may have faked their measurement17.
During the Phase 2 & 3, the real challenge for Pfizer & BioNTech started: how to make a completely ineffective & unsafe product look the exact opposite.
They did it not with one method, but with many, so it would be harder to decipher should people ever care about seriously reviewing the documents they didn't expect to have to share.
Phase 3 was conducted in several countries18: Turkey, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina & USA. Only two countries really mattered : Argentina with more than 5000 subjects & USA with more than 3300019.
In the USA, a trial site supervisor, Brook Jackson, with impeccable service reports, was fired 4 hours after blowing the whistle to the FDA on the exceptional malpractice and complete disregard for patients safety she was witnessing at the three trial sites where she worked20.
A significant number of exclusions disproportionately affected the BNT group21 - a phenomenon which only affected a few sites in the US22. This obvious red flag was visible from the first documents released.
All the samples were tested at only one place worldwide, the Pfizer "Pearl River" laboratory in New York23.
In theory the trial sites manager administering the product to the subjects and the laboratory running the tests didn't know if a subject received the BNT or the Placebo. Except that in USA, we know they did24, because at several sites the BNT subjects were tested much less than the placebo subjects. It's likely they used another PCR test to determine which subject received which product25.
In Argentina, the more than 5000 participants were in a military hospital under secret Defense contract with Pfizer26.
Major side effects were reported by Augusto Roux27, a lawyer who was then gaslit by the lead investigator of the only site.
To hide the COVID cases Polack proceeded less "elegantly" than in the US, and simply deleted at least 111 subjects from his database28.
So, voilà. By failing to register some adverse effects29, and by using subject deletions, "safety" was fraudulently proven. Using some other deletions and giving people in the treatment group fewer PCR tests, "effectiveness" was manufactured as well30. Allowing countless people to be exposed to an ineffective and unsafe injection31.
Corrupt health experts32, propagandists, and television-doctors have tried to push a product which a growing part of the population doesn't want, and to hide obviously unprecendented adverse effects33.
People lost their jobs34, lost family and friends, victims of the shots or of the propaganda.
Fired health care workers and injured victims committed suicide35. Over a health emergency which was manufactured by people who are in the trade of spreading diseases, and to sell a toxic snake oil as a solution36.
In light of these facts which you can verify in the many sources provided, the public urgently needs to demand an in depth reform of healthcare regulation and public oversight over their elected officials.
Interesting authors on the subject
The following section features people we strongly suggest you to follow, as, although we don’t always agree, they have always shown a strong regard to scientific evidence, taught us more than a few things on the above topic, and are regularly publishing researches of interest on the Pfizer trial.
Josh Guetzkow37, PhD & whistle-blower
Jikkyleaks38, PhD & anonymous whistle-blower
Geoffrey Norman Pain39, PhD & anonymous whistle-blower
Christine Cotton40, bio-statistician & whistle-blower
Brook Jackson41, Site Supervisor, public advocate & whistle-blower
Jeyanthi Kunadhasan42, MD & whistle-blower, and her fellow DailyClout partners.
Hélène Banoun43, PhD & whistle-blower
Augusto Roux44, PhD, lawyer & whistle-blower
Jonathan Weissman47, cyber-security professional & whistle-blower
Aaron Siri48, lawyer & public advocate
Norman Fenton49, PhD & whistle-blower
Peter Doshi50, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ
Maryanne Demasi51, PhD & whistle-blower
A Concerned Amyloidosis52, Health-care professional & anonymous whistle-blower
The “Abstractor” team53, who have provided countless efforts to allow researchers to access the data.
Thanks for reading OpenVAET’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
N.B. A growing number of people, not among our regular readers, somehow concluded that we are interested in discussing below an article the existence or non-existence of viruses, nanotechnologies, or other out-of-topic subjects. Although we welcome comments on our articles & insights on the pharmaceutical industry in general - we are very “single-focused”, mainly interested in Pfizer’s fraud being established, and have little time to lose, therefore such comments will be removed and their author suspended for 1 week ^ number of suspensions.
ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code - Yes threatening people to lose their job if they don’t comply is constrain - yes the product is experimental - no the consent wasn’t informed, don’t lose time arguing if you disagree with these basis.
Same article as above.
Same article as above.
Vimeo, ESWI (European Scientific Working Group), Chatam House, January 22, 2019, Marc Van Randst, Communication and public engagement
You’ll find “debunks” here & there calling for “cut versions” distorting the point. This is the original uncut version which we strongly encourage you to watch in full.
We haven’t found someone so far explaining us how the sentence “How will we call the next pandemic ?” comes in a normal conversation.