Pfizer/BioNTech C4591001 Trial - Can we add "meddling in the American election" to the long list of Pfizer/BioNTech crimes ?
Well, of course we can.
Introduction
My dear friend Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, MD, fired by Dan Andrews for refusing to submit to the jab mandates or to falsify a certificate, has been trying to make a point for a while that few seem to want to hear or understand - least of all talk about - while it seems to be quite big news. So, I shall jump in and support her in that debate via this short article.
Yes, undoubtedly, Pfizer & BioNTech seemed to try to interfere with the 2020 American Presidential Election, by slowing down the announcement of the (fake1) efficacy of their product, perhaps in order to refuse this victory to President Trump prior to Election Day, on November 3, 2020.
The contract between the US government and Pfizer signed 21 st July 20202, aspired for a FDA approved or authorised vaccine ready for administration in the US by October 31, 2020. This would have been achievable, as they were relying on being able to do planned interim analysis when relatively few eligible cases would be accrued, to be able to announce there was an effective vaccine.
The following video (accessible on Rumble by clicking the miniature below, or clicking here) will make that short travel in time clearer for everyone.
Breakdown of the reproduction of the cases accrued according to the sponsor’s document - and the code required to check our figures are available below - it’s rather easy and a journalist should be able to check them in less than 2 hours.
Video Transcript
Let's briefly remember the last American election.
One of President Trump's key political goals was to announce the availability of a vaccine before election day3.
The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine's efficacy was supposed to be announced after an "interim analysis," which was defined by the study's protocol4 to be done when 62 cases had been accrued.
However, it seems that someone did not want to give Trump an easy win. Let's hear directly from the horse's mouth in a short but revealing excerpt from “Mission Possible”, a Pfizer-financed documentary produced by National Geographic.
-- “Mission Possible” Extract5 --
By now, you probably have noticed when Albert Bourla is lying. It's when his lips are moving. Let's examine what really happened.
On November 3, the Presidential Election took place6.
On November 9, Pfizer announced the vaccine's efficacy, which was already an impressive 90%7.
According to Pfizer's documents8, 62 efficacy cases required for the interim analysis had been validated at Pfizer's Pearl River central laboratory by October 229. However, Pfizer delayed the announcement for 19 days, and by November 9, they had 133 cases. They could have announced the efficacy and given Trump a political victory, but they didn't.
Analysis Details
As we already detailed in a previous article, the 170 cases are located in .PDF document available thank to the PHMPT’s lawsuit10.
We downloaded & extracted all the PHMPT archives using this script available on Github.
We extracted the cases contained in the adequate .PDF11: table “16.2.8.2 - Subjects With First COVID-19 Occurrence From 7 Days After Dose 2 and Without Evidence of Infection Prior to 7 Days After Dose 2”. This results in the following .JSON file12.
We used the MB file, extracted & converted to .JSON13 using this other script, to determine accurately the positive PCR date - which isn’t available in the .PDF.
The analysis, generated by this last script, results in this chart representing the daily cases (blue columns) and total cases accrued (orange line - the comments on dates have been added after generation).
The daily counts are available in the following Google Spreadsheet14.
Subject 10911203 never had a positive PCR record stored and seems confirmed via an “Immunochromatography” on November 5. He was counted on his “symptoms date” instead of his central PCR date - but that won’t affect much the demonstration.
As you can verify, 62 cases were indeed accrued on October 22. Let’s admit a day of lag, they knew it by October 23.
The Press Release on November 9 is based on 94 cases - which should have been the third interim analysis. But even this target - which was scheduled to be the second interim analysis and not the first, was hit on October 31, and could have been announced on November 1st at the latest.
If the target really had been to save lives with a working product, of course.
Even if it’s possible that at 94 cases, the efficacy would have been lower than 90% (we will verify that later), there are no doubt that it would have been above the 50% required by the FDA and the Health crisis. We are therefore left with a “political motivation” as most likely explanation.
phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-sap.pdf, Statistical Analysis Plan, page 46
Youtube, Pfizer, Mission Possible: The Race for a Vaccine, 30:18 & following.
phmpt.org/pfizers-documents, “125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-lab-measurements-sensitive.pdf”, Table 16.2.8.2 - Listing of Subjects With First COVID-19 Occurrence From 7 Days After Dose 2 and Without Evidence of Infection Prior to 7 Days After Dose 2 – Evaluable Efficacy (7 Days) Population, page 66 to 99
Analysis detailed below the transcript.
phmpt.org/pfizers-documents, “125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-lab-measurements-sensitive.pdf”, Table 16.2.8.2 - Listing of Subjects With First COVID-19 Occurrence From 7 Days After Dose 2 and Without Evidence of Infection Prior to 7 Days After Dose 2 – Evaluable Efficacy (7 Days) Population, page 66 to 99
I remember reading about it, the FDA was involved too, as far as that article was concerned. They were mentioning how the FDA’s office lights were off for 3 days during Labor Day weekend (I believe that was the holiday, but I could be wrong, it might have been some other ‘banker holiday’), and that made the authors suspect it was an ‘inside job’ by Democrat operatives.
FWIW
Hope this turn into something, great job!
♥️
From what I remember, he talked about swabs being kept in fridges. The information about how many tested positive was found in the PHMPT papers, not sure if he knew exactly how many had been accrued, or if he was informed of the correct numbers .