Looking for the positive PCR & Symptomatic subjects through Pfizer/BioNTech's data obfuscations - and uncovering some more major anomalies on the way...
The trials were completely faked and incomplete. That is because this substance is not a vaccine or even a fake vaccine. It is a prototype countermeasure that was contracted by the DOD to be manufactured and distributed by big pharma and green-lighted by the FDA without questions.
Since it was an undefined (as far as exact purpose goes) countermeasure instigated under the EUA, no trials or testing was necessary before it hit the public. According to the DOD/big pharma contracts, this mRNA substance IS NOT a pharmaceutical. Therefore, it did not require ANY RCT trials.
It was promoted as a safe and effective vaccine but big pharma was acting under contractual orders of the DOD and HHS. It was a lie from day one.
I don't have the techie skills to plod through the stats, and I greatly appreciate that you all are able and willing. But I can contribute something else here.
What caught my attention in the article was this, shown in the screen capture of Pfizer's memo to the FDA asking for EUA (online date 11/dec/2020):
“It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases [409 pfizered vs. 287 placebo] occurring in the 7 days post vaccination **represents vaccine reactogenicity** with **symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.** Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events **that would not have otherwise been detected.**” (star highlights added)
First highlight:
Looking up "reactogenicity" revealed a lot of studies over the past 2 years were trying to verify the universal public reassurance that if you have serious AEs from the jab, "it means you're getting a good immune response."
I random-checked some peer-reviewed articles... from Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.
None of them could find a correlation between reactogenicity and immunogenicity. Not even the Chinese, who lied in their abstract but admitted the truth in their results.
In fact, the Germans described this idea as "a common belief" with "limited data" [read: none] to support it. And the Koreans flatly said that "reactogenicity… cannot be assumed to correlate with immunogenicity.”
So it's a myth. Yet the CDC website, updated just this month, repeats that AE reactions from the mRNA jab "are normal signs the body is building immunity."
Second/third highlights:
Remember the alarmingly long duration of the "clinically significant" AEs which we now know among the jabbed, and put it together with this neat identification of the AEs with what came to be called "long Covid" symptoms. We see that Pfizer knew about it from the start. And so did the FDA.
Presumably that includes the AEs causing "sudden death syndrome" - which we now know clustered within 14 days of the jab and were thus written off as "unvaxxed" deaths, or even "Covid" deaths. These too had "otherwise been detected" already by Pfizer and were expected to occur during the global roll-out.
The question is: Does knowing any of this, after the fact, help the cause of justice?
If I understand Jikky correctly, he's suggesting that a persons' vaccine status (real vaccine or placebo) could be found out via simple PCR test from an oral swab? Is that really possible without blood draw?
This is an excellent body of work. Thank you for putting in the effort. I am disappointed that I have only found this substack recently.
What strikes me is the large number of participants that suffered Covid like symptoms. NEJM reports that the median time of observation was 2 months. However we can easily calculate through person-years and number of participants in each wing that the mean observation period was only six weeks.
Does it make sense that about 1 in 10 relatively healthy participants would come down with Covid symptoms in such a short time? Is it reasonable that only 1 in 20 symptomatic people actually had Covid in the middle of a Covid pandemic?
When it comes right down to the utility of this product, it barely did anything with regard to preventing Covid-like symptoms.
The trials were completely faked and incomplete. That is because this substance is not a vaccine or even a fake vaccine. It is a prototype countermeasure that was contracted by the DOD to be manufactured and distributed by big pharma and green-lighted by the FDA without questions.
Since it was an undefined (as far as exact purpose goes) countermeasure instigated under the EUA, no trials or testing was necessary before it hit the public. According to the DOD/big pharma contracts, this mRNA substance IS NOT a pharmaceutical. Therefore, it did not require ANY RCT trials.
It was promoted as a safe and effective vaccine but big pharma was acting under contractual orders of the DOD and HHS. It was a lie from day one.
This is a very concerning and important analysis. Can you put an abstract?
I don't have the techie skills to plod through the stats, and I greatly appreciate that you all are able and willing. But I can contribute something else here.
What caught my attention in the article was this, shown in the screen capture of Pfizer's memo to the FDA asking for EUA (online date 11/dec/2020):
“It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases [409 pfizered vs. 287 placebo] occurring in the 7 days post vaccination **represents vaccine reactogenicity** with **symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.** Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events **that would not have otherwise been detected.**” (star highlights added)
First highlight:
Looking up "reactogenicity" revealed a lot of studies over the past 2 years were trying to verify the universal public reassurance that if you have serious AEs from the jab, "it means you're getting a good immune response."
I random-checked some peer-reviewed articles... from Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.
None of them could find a correlation between reactogenicity and immunogenicity. Not even the Chinese, who lied in their abstract but admitted the truth in their results.
In fact, the Germans described this idea as "a common belief" with "limited data" [read: none] to support it. And the Koreans flatly said that "reactogenicity… cannot be assumed to correlate with immunogenicity.”
So it's a myth. Yet the CDC website, updated just this month, repeats that AE reactions from the mRNA jab "are normal signs the body is building immunity."
Second/third highlights:
Remember the alarmingly long duration of the "clinically significant" AEs which we now know among the jabbed, and put it together with this neat identification of the AEs with what came to be called "long Covid" symptoms. We see that Pfizer knew about it from the start. And so did the FDA.
Presumably that includes the AEs causing "sudden death syndrome" - which we now know clustered within 14 days of the jab and were thus written off as "unvaxxed" deaths, or even "Covid" deaths. These too had "otherwise been detected" already by Pfizer and were expected to occur during the global roll-out.
The question is: Does knowing any of this, after the fact, help the cause of justice?
Great work thus far.
If I understand Jikky correctly, he's suggesting that a persons' vaccine status (real vaccine or placebo) could be found out via simple PCR test from an oral swab? Is that really possible without blood draw?
Wow! Great work. I posted on Reddit
Don't forget they were/are counting TESTS as CASES no matter the final result.
Not like the any of the tests can tell you anything anyway since they don't provide differentiation.
"The SAS .XPT file “S1_M5_c4591001-S-D-mb” contains, among other Hepatitis or HIV tests, the raw results of the PCR tests performed on the subjects."
Does this file contain CT values?
This is an excellent body of work. Thank you for putting in the effort. I am disappointed that I have only found this substack recently.
What strikes me is the large number of participants that suffered Covid like symptoms. NEJM reports that the median time of observation was 2 months. However we can easily calculate through person-years and number of participants in each wing that the mean observation period was only six weeks.
Does it make sense that about 1 in 10 relatively healthy participants would come down with Covid symptoms in such a short time? Is it reasonable that only 1 in 20 symptomatic people actually had Covid in the middle of a Covid pandemic?
When it comes right down to the utility of this product, it barely did anything with regard to preventing Covid-like symptoms.