Actual Vaccine Research & Studies & Documents

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

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

1. After the NOV 2020 summary release, Pfizer did a 6-month follow up of the participants, published on 7/28/2021.
2. Pfizer reported "a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy" which means that over time, the experimental drug was less and less effective.
3. Effective against what? Against ANY illness (not Covid-specific). This is yet another subtle lie, since ALL disease is NOT what these drugs are supposed to prevent, but by including them it makes the statistics look better.
4. There were far more "adverse events" in the group that got the drug than in the group that did not get the drug.
5. After 6 months, 15 people in the test group (got the drug) died, and 14 people in the control group (no drug) died. This is out of 22,000+ in each group.
6. This difference is statistically insignificant.
7. Pfizer does not say WHAT any of these people died of. Could have been a car crash or 90-year old having a stroke. Pfizer did not report this data.
8. In addition to the 15 in the test goup who died and the 14 in the control group who died, there were an additional 3 in the test group who also died after the initial 15, and 2 who were originally in the placebo group but were later given the drug, as well (so, 5 who got the drug at some point, and 0 who did not).
9. Therefore, 20 who got the drug died, and 14 who did NOT get the drug died. (No causes of death are disclosed.)
10. In terms of "getting Covid" they only report "cases." Although there were more "cases" of Covid in the control group than the test group, this is most likely based on the fraudulent PCR test, which both the CDC and FDA have since publicly declared are not valid. So, this data is irrelevant. (The data about Covid "cases" being irrelevant is kind of a BIG DEAL, since the entire POINT of this drug in the first place is supposedly to "prevent the spread of Covid" -- even though they did not even TEST for that.) However, deaths might be relavant (depending on causes of death, which have been hidden), and adverse effects are also relevant.
11. Both deaths and adverse effects were much higher in the group who got the drug than in the group that did not.
12. Pfizer claims that "Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of ~6% every 2 months." Of course, this is based on statistical fraud, as previously explained, but is important to understand that THIS is the basis for the claim that "booster shots are needed."

Some more interesting notes:

• "This report has several limitations." (Yeah, no shit.)
• "Duration of protection and safety data that could be collected in a blinded, placebo-controlled manner were limited by the ethical and practical need to immunize eligible initial placebo recipients under EUA and according to public health authority recommendations." Does this mean what I THINK it means? Does it mean that EVERYONE got some sort of experimental drug -- even the people in the "placebo" control group? That would be strange, indeed, if it means that. It would, of course, mean that the entire study is completely meaningless. Maybe my read of this sentence is not correct. Very weird.
• "Data presented here do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection" Exactly my previous point. They did not even LOOK AT whether or not this experimental drug prevented getting or giving of Covid. They ONLY looked at symptoms (and it turns out, that the symptoms were HIGHER in the test group than the control group -- by a large margin -- and they did NOT disclose this information earlier).
• "... but evaluation of that question [asymptomatic infection] is ongoing in this study, and real-world data suggest that BNT162b2 prevents asymptomatic infection." Based on WHAT??? Pfizer's CLAIM that it is so? MUH-SCIENCE !!!
• "This report does not address VE and safety in pregnant women and in children younger than 12 years." And yet, talking heads on TV demand these people get the injection of an unknown substance with unknown and unproven health implications.

One of the most important takeaways from this study, which Pfizer is NOT directly stating is this:

• Out of the slightly more than 22,000 participants in the control group (no drug?), 14 people died.
• Out of the slightly more than 22,000 participants on the test group (got the drug at some point), 20 people died.

So you have a 1/1000 chance of dying from the vaccine, and that’s just a six month follow up, and that doesn’t involve adverse reactions including permanent disability. I am concerned for the data coming out in the next five years. There has been no safety profile done for pregnant women and children. 

The mortality rate for the virus itself, which I personally am taking with a grain of salt because I have virtually witnessed death ‘by covid’ that is really more like WITH covid, when you’re 90 and have underlying health concerns that on clinical presentation a patient has succumbed to. Every time you enter a hospital you are being tested for covid. If you get hit by a car and eventually succumb to this you are often dying by covid. There are issues with the reporting much like there have been issues with PCR accuracy. People lean toward covid being the overall cause of death quite too often. Not only this, but we forget that many elderly people who catch the flu each year do in fact die and this has happened forever. Immunocompromised people do have to take extra precautions in their way of life while illnesses such as the flu exist. Adjusting for the deviation that is immunocompromised people, more accurate reporting and tests that are better use of diagnostics, I would love to see the true statistics of covid. All of this, and yet the “my body my choice” group now actively goes against their own principles in saying we must get an experimental gene therapy. No- nobody is forced to get any medical treatment, ever, there are no exceptions, this is democracy. Imagine trying to force someone to have a medical treatment they don’t want, while also being certain you’re on the ‘right side of history.’ Sounds like a lot of the people who called others ‘Nazis’ were projecting hard.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Reactions 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Page 40, second paragraph, second sentence.

https://www.vraagde2ekamer.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Homo-sapiens-chromosome-8-GRCh38.p13-Primary-Assembly-Nucleotide-NCBI.pdf

Note this human genome 8 sequence, found at the bottom of the page. ctccctttgt tgtgttgt

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2

Now look at what this PCR is testing for. Remembering that (in spite of PCR tests not meaning to be used for infectious disease). The test essentially magnifies what data you are specifically entering and testing for.

In saying that,

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

The PCR test HAS been withdrawn, but they are not telling us why. Probably because it is not an accurate diagnostic. They have just said there’s fun new ones they want to try. Well if something works and is efficient, especially in the time of a ‘crisis,’ I’m not sure why PCR would be withdrawn. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf

Fun graph regarding the false premise that public gatherings cause covid (Sweden would beg to differ since the very start) and in doing so accidentally highlight the strangely higher incidence of covid in vaccinated individuals than non vaccinated 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

SEC filing that states gene therapy

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1

Pre 2020 guidelines that explain home quarantine, border closure and contract tracing to be inefficient and NOT recommended. 

They also looked at the worlds 10 best mask studies 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

CDC’s 2017 pandemic plan did not involve business closure, involved voluntary stay at home isolation of the sick and exposed, and voluntary masks by sick people in crowded situations. Sweden has followed these plans and done fantastically.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

"Rapid quarantine of close contacts with or without symptoms is needed to prevent presymptomatic transmission." AND YET "We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure." How do these two statements coexist? 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795

https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/67-2021/testimony/HPOLSUB-1323-20210204-5275-F-SEELY_BRADLEY.pdf

https://usareally.com/10276-pfizer-and-astrazeneca-vaccines-led-to-178-miscarriages

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009453/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print_DLP_28.07.2021.pdf  

And this is just what’s been reported, allegedly, assuming no censorship