You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
[RoundingTheEarth] Pfizer Trial Fraud: The House of Cards Shakes
2022-05-25
Let us summarize what is to come:

  • The trial reports should never have been read as demonstrating efficacy.

  • A trial whistleblower was buried for more than a year, then shared how poorly and dishonestly her trial site was run.

  • The FDA never checked around 94% of trial sites.

  • It appears some of the trial sites were purely fabricated. I leave my mind open for this to be incorrect, but I highly doubt it.

  • Evidence suggests that the vaccines are inducing COVID-19.

  • The method for confirming COVID-19 was both cherry-picked and inconsistently applied. Another method shows Zero Efficacy.

  • International data tells a Zero Efficacy story.

  • National data handlers seem to be "fixing" data to hide Zero Efficacy.

A Confidence Game


The code of the con is to know just enough about everything so you can lie about anything." -Dan Garfat-Pratt

It took me approximately 19.3 minutes to grow tired of hearing the phrase, "Well run clinical trial" after the December 10, 2020 publication of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine trial report. If you did not recognize the insertion of that catch phrase into the daily conversation of every standard American drone model, you probably need your hearing checked. But perhaps that was a perfectly reasonable assumption for a company like Pfizer that has a well-designed logo and ample advertising budget, and gets described as a "habitual offender" in journal-speak (Evans, 2010; Hat tip LifeSiteNews). Isn't a habitual offender who you'd trust to look after your children? Or does that sound a little cra-cra?

Document image left out to keep _me_ from going cray-cray.

What a beautifully type-set document, don't you think?

I remember thinking it sounded...less than classy when college football bowl games were sponsored. At least at that level we can mostly pretend there is no conflict of interest like an egotistical CEO sending a quarter of a million dollars in cash to five star recruits, or whatever the refs might get to keep the outcome of the game in line with positive association with the sponsor brand. And in bowl games, neither university gets to sponsor the game and pay the refs (legally). I wonder what it would buy them if they could?

Let us recall from the start that Pfizer was not even presenting a document in which enough trial participants were reported on to establish the claimed results.

That we still do not have answers as to whether all of this lopsided exclusion total represents injuries that might be fairly classified as COVID-19 stands out as criminal on its own. But this is only one of numerous serious problems that corporate and government actors seem to pretend away en route to the largest medical experiment in human history.

On January 4, 2021, Peter Doshi published an article in the BMJ with the simple message, "We need more details and the raw data." While Doshi covered many important points, the most obvious one that stands out are the thousands of participants with "suspected, but unconfirmed" cases of COVID-19 were not even evaluated for COVID-19. This does not even include hospitalized participants from Site 1231 (and perhaps many others), which we'll talk about below.

The trial additionally seemed to show around an 86% reduction in COVID-19 reinfection cases. This does not seem to fit reality since, which should make us wonder about the entire body of data.

Though we were promised transparency, and presented with a beautifully type-set trial report, there have always been questions about how the data was "processed" or "laundered" or whatever word you might want to use.

Go to the original site to see the whole thing, including all the images I don't want to deal with. The next two sections are titled "Poorly Conducted trial sites" and "Fake Trial Sites?"
Posted by:Thing From Snowy Mountain

#9  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: swksvolFF   2022-05-25 17:45  

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2022-05-25 17:08  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Bobby   2022-05-25 16:41  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: NN2N1   2022-05-25 15:28  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Skidmark   2022-05-25 15:26  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: M. Murcek   2022-05-25 14:58  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Dale   2022-05-25 14:55  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: M. Murcek   2022-05-25 13:29  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Ebbaise Brown5939   2022-05-25 13:11  

00:00