pfizer documents

Jul 21, 2023
  1. blog
  2. covid
  3. pfizer documents
  • Data shows that it has a 12% efficacy rate for the first 7 days and then falls to less than 1%
  • No human clinical trials to determine if it is safe for pregnant or breastfeeding. Instead they concluded it was safe from testin on 44 rats
  • Only 6% of the subjects are accounted for. Where are the 25,70 patients missing from their data?
  • lipid nanoparticles were found to be distributed throughout the body, in the liver, ovaries and other vital organs 48 hours after injection.

Pfizer’s Documents

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

On What Basis Did Pfizer Claim 95%?

The 95% VE (vaccine efficacy) arises from the 8 confirmed Covid cases from the vaccinated group (from at least 7 days after Dose 2) compared to 162 from the placebo group.

A key section buried within this document, which alludes to possibly the real VE at that time, is the following damning data below (found on page 42).

Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population,

1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs.

1816 in the placebo group.

Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were

409 in the vaccine group vs.

287 in the placebo group.

These were people showing actual symptoms. If you calculate the VE from these numbers, it’s a staggeringly low 12%. VE is calculated by dividing the difference between the case numbers in the placebo and vaccine groups, by the case number in the placebo group x 100 = VE of 12 %

This is a vast climb down from the 95% VE generated by easily manipulated PCR tests, conducted in a central lab chosen by Pfizer. What’s even more alarming, is that this data was known almost a year and a half ago, by the FDA themselves.

On What Basis Did Pfizer Claim 95%?

By Sonia ElijahSonia Elijah May 3, 2022

https://brownstone.org/articles/on-what-basis-did-pfizer-claim-95/

December 10, 2020 FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

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

genotoxicity and carcinogenicity

https://jessicar.substack.com/p/genotoxicity-and-carcinogenicity?utm_medium=email&s=r

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M2_24_nonclinical-overview.pdf

Genotoxicity is descriptive of chemically-induced damage to genetic information that causes mutations1 (a change in DNA sequence) and may lead to cancer.

Carcinogenicity is descriptive of the ability to induce cancer and remember, a carcinogen does not necessarily have to be a toxin!

Cancer is any disease in which normal cells are damaged and the balance of growth versus death/removal is skewed toward growth.

Secondary pharmacodynamics involve studies on the mode of action and/or effects of a substance not related to its desired therapeutic target and safety pharmacology involves studies that investigate the potential undesirable pharmacodynamic effects of a substance on physiological functions in relation to exposure in the therapeutic range and above.

Genetic mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes that occur during cell division, from exposure to ionizing radiation (like from medical X-rays - physical mutagen), exposure to chemicals (chemical mutagens) or even by infection by viruses like Human Papillomavirus (HPV)2 (biological mutagen).

Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.

There were NO genotoxicity or carcinogencinity studies done in the context of the COVID-19 modified RNA LNP-based products during pre-market testing. - Because the genetic material and the fats were not expected to have genotoxic, carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential.

“Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”

These products are called ‘vaccines’ but they are based on a completely different model - a completely different platform and delivery system, so they cannot be deemed non-mutagenic until proven otherwise with studies.

BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview, page 29
2.4.4.4. Genotoxicity
No genotoxicity studies are planned for BNT162b2 as the components
of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected
to have genotoxic potential (WHO, 2005).

2.4.4.5. Carcinogenicity
Carcinogenicity studies with BNT162b2 have not been conducted as the
components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to
have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential. Carcinogenicity testing is
generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure
of vaccine products for infectious diseases
(WHO, 2005).

No phototoxicity, dependence, metabolite, impurity and ‘other’ studies were also not conducted in the context the BNT162b2 product. No Safety Pharmacology, no Secondary Pharmacodynamic and no Pharmacodynamic Drug Interaction studies were done.

https://twitter.com/phyxx/status/1503456972133191680

Stay connected with us on social media
Created by Donald Farmer
Headless Nuxt Content Vuejs Tailwind