The guy in the clip makes a joke that they allowed pregnant women in the study because not all women know when they are pregnant - so the researchers allegedly didn’t know it, either.
But how was it possible? My guess is that the participants in a study, right on the admission, are subjected to a number of tests (including blood or urine tests) with the purpose of assessing their general health condition and eligibility for the study.
In all medicine, pregnant women are considered at high risk and all procedures are fenced with enhanced safety requirements.
Now imagine one of the largest companies in the industry, working on a humanity-saving preparation, announcing full transparency like never before, and deliberately omitting the tests that could even hint at pregnancy.
They were testing women for pregnancy on screening/randomization ; it's just that they didn't care to wait for the results to proceed with injecting them - so women who weren't aware they were pregnant could get in.
A few became pregnant during the trial as well.
See Maryanne Demasi's article interviewing Retsef Levi on the topic of the numerous anomalies of the pregnancy trial - which was interrupted a few congenital malformations before to be statistically significant.
Also see Arkmedic's numerous articles on the subject.
Thank you for the explanation and link. I thought at the same lines (because why don't we gather more data when we can), it's just that I don’t like the “I am so high above you” tone of the speaker.
Oh, on that part you're entirely correct. Nobody elected or named this utter moron to interfere - disastrously (purposefully or not) - in health decisions.
The booster trial evaluated Process 2 in 306 people batches EJ0553 EE8493 and ER9449 . EJ0553 and EE8493 were distributed to trial sites as part of the P2 element of trial
The 306 is a separate group to the 252 because the trial document states they had all eprevuously received 2 doses of " prototype" product
The reactogenicity of P2 was manifestly much greater than P1 from that trial
That excessive potency should have dropped the product but it did not because all the regulators ascribed the reaction to a voodyrr dose when it was tge first time anyone had received the product in a formal trial.
The evidence for the batches used is in European Medical Agency report for Pfizer booster
Really great analysis here--thank you. And fast, too. In our own mucking around in the EUA data in replicating the Pfizer analyses, we found anomalies as well, and never could reproduce Thomas completely. Lots to digest here, so off to read indepth. Peace...
Yeah ; reproducing their figures past the dose 1 / dose 2 isn't entirely doable - due to the fact that the data kept moving after "cut-off" and before "submission" - so subjects which were fitting analytic criteria at some point aren't anymore.
See "At investigator's discretion" linked above for more details.
In which case, the data has been released, located in the MB file.
See the code base of my pinned article - for example the scripts referenced in this section, for identification details ; and let me know if you need a hand.
I'm still thinking that the greatest problem are those 106 "randomized but not exposed", half of them in both groups.
Sounds not remarkable at a glance because of the same rates.
However, you should take their hat on. If you would have to hide early deaths and SAE, it would be best to do it via these cases. They are now invisible, because said to be not exposed.
Everybody would have stick to this problem, if placebo had had a far lower rate. So, the reasonable solution for them was to declare early death (or SAE) on active as "randomized but not exposed" and to also take out one placebo subject.
Note finally that in both trials with modRNA together, about 37.000 participants were said to have received the active jab However, only 1 death was reported to have occurred within 3 weeks of injection of Dose 1 and 2! We know form many observational data that most died soon after the injections.
This only 1 was also very strange: Found dead at home by the police 3 days after the first jab. Hence, he could have died already on the day of the jab. Unfortunately for Pfizer, this case was in the police documents. So dangerous to alter retrospectively.
Furthermore, Pfizer initially declared the death as due to "arteriosclerosis". However, nobody dies suddenly because of this disease, far too much nonsense. Later they changed it to atherosclerosis, Sounds similar and a little bit more plausible, if not knowing the story above.
I always appreciate your perspective on the data, but I disagree. My opinion is that pharma has a toolkit of "fraud-tricks" in which they pick when required, and that they deployed most of the toolkit here.
We already established that the patterns of irregularities by sites were very different in the US, and in Argentina. We also established that a very large chunk of records had been simply removed, You don't expose yourself on the entire scheme in one given country, or toward one given PI - given that, even if they probably control them relatively well, you never know who will have remorse.
Hence, I may very well be wrong, but I don't think the "non-randomized" are key. On the bright side we should have a chance to settle this debate in a near future.
Not the "non-randomized", but the "randomized but not exposed".
The 106 were in fact randomized. I think they used central randomization, hence, the subjects randomized were registered there. There must have been a control.
But what can you do if the investigator says, or if he is forced to say, that the subject was not exposed?
These cases are made invisible by this rule.
In the Moderna trial they even had a case of "sudden cardiac death" in medical history.
In both modRNA trials the numbers of cases of "randomized but not exposed" were unusually high. This is particularly surprising, as the protocol made much efforts that the subjects were injected soon after the randomization. Is there really any true exception in the Comirnaty trial that both happened the same day? In the Spikevax RCT i identified only 1 difference, but by 1 year, meaning a date error. that had not been cleared in the Blinded FU report.
In the large Comirnaty trial with 46k randomized I would, through based on gut statistics´, i.e. my experience, expect less than 5, certainly not 106. Far too many!
I agree that they used many other dirty tricks to hide problems. You mentioned the menstrual bleeding, I fully agree. No doubt in this point These cases could hardly be swiped by the "randomized but not exposed" trick. But for the very early deaths this worked and most likely was used.
—until six months ago, it was still accessible as normal, and only then did it end up in the Wayback Machine—and no offense, but someone has been tracking the data very closely for a long time...
Great work. Surely this is enough evidence now to stop administering the crap, and a thorough investigation.
The guy in the clip makes a joke that they allowed pregnant women in the study because not all women know when they are pregnant - so the researchers allegedly didn’t know it, either.
But how was it possible? My guess is that the participants in a study, right on the admission, are subjected to a number of tests (including blood or urine tests) with the purpose of assessing their general health condition and eligibility for the study.
In all medicine, pregnant women are considered at high risk and all procedures are fenced with enhanced safety requirements.
Now imagine one of the largest companies in the industry, working on a humanity-saving preparation, announcing full transparency like never before, and deliberately omitting the tests that could even hint at pregnancy.
They were testing women for pregnancy on screening/randomization ; it's just that they didn't care to wait for the results to proceed with injecting them - so women who weren't aware they were pregnant could get in.
A few became pregnant during the trial as well.
See Maryanne Demasi's article interviewing Retsef Levi on the topic of the numerous anomalies of the pregnancy trial - which was interrupted a few congenital malformations before to be statistically significant.
Also see Arkmedic's numerous articles on the subject.
https://www.arkmedic.info/p/the-miscarriages-are-glowing
Thank you for the explanation and link. I thought at the same lines (because why don't we gather more data when we can), it's just that I don’t like the “I am so high above you” tone of the speaker.
Oh, on that part you're entirely correct. Nobody elected or named this utter moron to interfere - disastrously (purposefully or not) - in health decisions.
The booster trial evaluated Process 2 in 306 people batches EJ0553 EE8493 and ER9449 . EJ0553 and EE8493 were distributed to trial sites as part of the P2 element of trial
The 306 is a separate group to the 252 because the trial document states they had all eprevuously received 2 doses of " prototype" product
The reactogenicity of P2 was manifestly much greater than P1 from that trial
That excessive potency should have dropped the product but it did not because all the regulators ascribed the reaction to a voodyrr dose when it was tge first time anyone had received the product in a formal trial.
The evidence for the batches used is in European Medical Agency report for Pfizer booster
Consequences are huge.
Booster dose
Really great analysis here--thank you. And fast, too. In our own mucking around in the EUA data in replicating the Pfizer analyses, we found anomalies as well, and never could reproduce Thomas completely. Lots to digest here, so off to read indepth. Peace...
Thanks to you.
Yeah ; reproducing their figures past the dose 1 / dose 2 isn't entirely doable - due to the fact that the data kept moving after "cut-off" and before "submission" - so subjects which were fitting analytic criteria at some point aren't anymore.
See "At investigator's discretion" linked above for more details.
We actually never found the data that produced the graph. Checking to see if it made it to phmpt.
Not sure of what you mean by "the graph" ? The famous efficacy one ?
Yep.
In which case, the data has been released, located in the MB file.
See the code base of my pinned article - for example the scripts referenced in this section, for identification details ; and let me know if you need a hand.
https://openvaet.substack.com/i/144275433/anomalous-patterns-in-pcr-testing
Thanks! Will review—when not on my phone (tired eyes). To rigor and reproducibility!
I'm still thinking that the greatest problem are those 106 "randomized but not exposed", half of them in both groups.
Sounds not remarkable at a glance because of the same rates.
However, you should take their hat on. If you would have to hide early deaths and SAE, it would be best to do it via these cases. They are now invisible, because said to be not exposed.
Everybody would have stick to this problem, if placebo had had a far lower rate. So, the reasonable solution for them was to declare early death (or SAE) on active as "randomized but not exposed" and to also take out one placebo subject.
Note finally that in both trials with modRNA together, about 37.000 participants were said to have received the active jab However, only 1 death was reported to have occurred within 3 weeks of injection of Dose 1 and 2! We know form many observational data that most died soon after the injections.
This only 1 was also very strange: Found dead at home by the police 3 days after the first jab. Hence, he could have died already on the day of the jab. Unfortunately for Pfizer, this case was in the police documents. So dangerous to alter retrospectively.
Furthermore, Pfizer initially declared the death as due to "arteriosclerosis". However, nobody dies suddenly because of this disease, far too much nonsense. Later they changed it to atherosclerosis, Sounds similar and a little bit more plausible, if not knowing the story above.
I always appreciate your perspective on the data, but I disagree. My opinion is that pharma has a toolkit of "fraud-tricks" in which they pick when required, and that they deployed most of the toolkit here.
We already established that the patterns of irregularities by sites were very different in the US, and in Argentina. We also established that a very large chunk of records had been simply removed, You don't expose yourself on the entire scheme in one given country, or toward one given PI - given that, even if they probably control them relatively well, you never know who will have remorse.
Hence, I may very well be wrong, but I don't think the "non-randomized" are key. On the bright side we should have a chance to settle this debate in a near future.
Not the "non-randomized", but the "randomized but not exposed".
The 106 were in fact randomized. I think they used central randomization, hence, the subjects randomized were registered there. There must have been a control.
But what can you do if the investigator says, or if he is forced to say, that the subject was not exposed?
These cases are made invisible by this rule.
In the Moderna trial they even had a case of "sudden cardiac death" in medical history.
In both modRNA trials the numbers of cases of "randomized but not exposed" were unusually high. This is particularly surprising, as the protocol made much efforts that the subjects were injected soon after the randomization. Is there really any true exception in the Comirnaty trial that both happened the same day? In the Spikevax RCT i identified only 1 difference, but by 1 year, meaning a date error. that had not been cleared in the Blinded FU report.
In the large Comirnaty trial with 46k randomized I would, through based on gut statistics´, i.e. my experience, expect less than 5, certainly not 106. Far too many!
I agree that they used many other dirty tricks to hide problems. You mentioned the menstrual bleeding, I fully agree. No doubt in this point These cases could hardly be swiped by the "randomized but not exposed" trick. But for the very early deaths this worked and most likely was used.
Very much appreciated work.
Outstanding work as always.
Thanks for all of your efforts.
What I can't quite understand is the fact that no one made this file available to the public back in 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20210308053257/https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf
—until six months ago, it was still accessible as normal, and only then did it end up in the Wayback Machine—and no offense, but someone has been tracking the data very closely for a long time...
https://welcometheeagle.substack.com/p/35618602-victims-dead-from-the-covid?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
https://welcometheeagle.substack.com/p/fda-faers-nefariously-hides-death
maybe one should also take a look there—or at Aaron Siri himself,
https://substack.com/@aaronsiri
who, with the help of colleagues, achieved the ruling on the release of the data/document....
Good luck for you all!!
Wait 'til they figure out homicidal tendencies are another side effect of the covid vaccine.