OK, this is an elaborate scam. I started to write and try to explain it all, but it became a wall of text because it is so elaborate (still is a wall of text, even reduced -- lol). So, I will try to simplify.

(1) Here is Pfizer's claim from their original press release, that their drug is "95% effective."

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

(2) They come up with the 95% number by saying that 162 in the control group and 8 in the test group had both (a) a symptom (completely subjective) and (b) a positive PCR test (not a valid diagnostic tool). From this, they say that 170 total were positive and symptomatic, and 95% of those were from the control group, only 5% got the drug. But this is a lie.

It was 162 out of 20,000+ in the control group vs. 8 out of 20,000+ in the control group. Over 99% in both groups did NOT have both a symptom AND a PCR+ test result. So, the difference in effectiveness was LESS THAN 1%, and that assumes these numbers were truthful in the first place. But, they were not truthful. They were lies.

(3) In reality, 287 in the control group got a symptom, and 409 in the test group got a symptom. So MORE participants who got the drug stated they got a symptom than in the control group. This is found in the document they submitted to the FDA, on page 42:

Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

So, how did they go from 287 to 162 in the control group, and 409 to 8 in the test group? This was the bombshell that Karen Kingston dropped (I have watched several of her interviews and I don't remember which one -- but I think it was a Stew Peters interview).

She said that Pfizer had 287 out of 20,000+ in the control group that reported a symptom. Then, they were given a PCR "test" and 162 tested positive. So, it would then be true that 162 out of 20,000+ in the control group (less than 1%) had BOTH a symptom AND a positive PCR.

However, she said that of the 409 that reported a symptom in the test group, ONLY 9 WERE GIVEN A PCR TEST. Of those 9, there were 8 who tested positive, which is where they got the 8 from.

But then ... PFIZER ENDED THE TRIAL. They did NOT give a PCR test to ALL 409, but ONLY TO 9 OF THEM. Pfizer claimed they "ran out of time" to test the remaining 400.

Since 8/9 (89%) tested positive, it is quite possible they stopped because they could see they were not going to get the result they wanted.

I have not been able to find this other document she referred to, and she did not state where it could be found.

BTW, this was Pfizer's 6-month follow up:

https://www.scribd.com/document/517713886/2021-07-28-21261159v1-full

Both the original data and the follow up show:

• Pfizer did not test for effectiveness of getting or spreading the coof.
• Pfizer claimed their drug reduced symptoms, but actually more symptoms were reported in the drug group.
• Also, more deaths were reported in the drug group. (Pfizer did not report any causes of death.)
• Pfizer killed the study when they "unblinded" it (it was never really blind, which is one of the many reasons it was a bogus study), and they gave the control goup the drug, too -- and then did a 6-month follow up anyway.
• The overall deaths were VERY low (lower than average population), which tells us MOST of the participants were young and healhty. IOW: the people who were NOT at risk where the ones in the study.
• Pfizer excluded participants who had co-morbidities -- the very people most likely to have difficulty with the coof.

So, the big takeaways are:

• No evidence that the drug prevents getting the coof, and that was not even looked at in the study.
• No evidence that the drug prevents the spread of the coof, and that was not even looked at in the study.
• There IS evidence that the drug produced MORE symptoms in those who got the drug than those who did not, but Pfizer LIED about this in their press release.
• If we can find the other document that Kingston referenced that shows they stopped giving PCR test to the test group after just 9 people, that would be the final nail in the coffin.

This is the only objection that I think is valid.

I don't need a reason, other than its my life and my body and I choose what medical procedures I will accept.

anything else is a submission to the idea that someone else owns your body.

"OK, you're fired."

Now what?