Wondering why there have been so many slide posts? New Pfizer docs dropped
(phmpt.org)
🔍 START DIGGING
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (80)
sorted by:
3600 pages of adverse effect narratives. It lists the patients medical history and a description of the adverse event/why they think it happened.
https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-narrative-sensitive.pdf
I'm only on page 37 and I am livid.
Do it in bits, look after yourself. But maybe this will get creative
This is a better look at each subject who had an adverse effect, several pages for each so not 3500 victims. First one had a medical history that would make it easy to gloss over the fatal heart attack 2 mos. after 2nd dose--especially with no autopsy. I'm wondering already if there was some cherry picking of cases that could be swept under the rug the same way.
also, given placebo
What I'm saying. It looks like a pretty good medical record, but they lost a lot of data already, so who knows how good it really is.
The placebo pts are shocking me. Did these patients CONSENT to be in the placebo group? Did they CONSENT to being part of an EXPERIMENT? I'm thinking this is a pretty big find!
Everyone was withdrawn from the study for various reasons. Ironic they didn’t feel any serious side effects were due to the vaccine, only dizziness, pain at injection, etc. Don’t have time now but was starting to notice a pattern. Need to compare time frame, lot number, reaction
Everyone was withdrawn, or everyone withdrew? There is a difference. The first case indicates that maybe someone was trying to stop this thing running down the hill into the fiery pits of doom. The second was a bottom-up FU reaction from the 'clients'.
I would say both? Pregnancy, withdrawn. Death, withdrawn. Attempted suicide, withdrawn. There’s everything from muscle spasms to vomiting to facial paralysis to tumors found 21 (don’t quote me) after vax. To me, they attributed anything serious to pre-existing condition and only said minimal things like dizziness or injection site swelling could be attributed. I haven’t gone through the entire document but it looks like all these patients were withdrawn from the study? Also wonder about the “placebo” bc some of the adverse reactions are things we’ve read about on VAERS with people who had no preexisting condition.
I like how every conclusion ends with: In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that _____ was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was ____. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.
LOL, how much are they paying the investigator?
This is normal. In any study on human subjects, any adverse effect (AE) must be investigated by a third party physician and a determination made as to whether the AE happened due to the patient's baseline health or due to the study drug. If the patient was given placebo, they would always come to the conclusion that the AE was unrelated to the study drug, but this investigation is carried out for patients in the experimental group. The determination is common. For example, if you're giving patients a topic antifungal for foot fungus or something and the patient develops a stroke, it's likely unrelated simply due to how the antifungals work and the fact the medication was giving topically and not systemically.
That said, Pfizer (and most others) made a key assumption early on: that the spike protein itself was not harmful. That assumption may not be true, based on newer understanding about the physiology of the system upon which it works. The spike protein binding to the ACE2 receptor in endothelial (the inside layer of arteries) tissue has a pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effect, which is why we see microclotting with so many COVID patients. Giving the protein artificially as part of a vaccine would cause the same state if it, too, bound the ACE2 receptor. I'm not certain that this was appreciated when the data was being evaluated - so investigators would've missed the connection.
As for the corruption insinuation, I personally know professors and colleagues who have served as peer reviewers for things like this. They take the role seriously and impartiality, even brutal honesty, is very much part of the ethic when doing this type of work. They are, after all, the final check on "new science." If they make mistakes, journals won't hire them as future peer reviewers either. I do believe some people could be corrupt, but I'd have to see proof before I start believing this was intentional rather than an omission due to simple lack of knowledge from the scientific community as a whole.