Pandemic Timeline

Uncategorized

The FDA begins dumping documents, as ordered

Tags:

The following is about one of those documents, “5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021” by Pfizer’s Worldwide Safety department.

Here are some important points to remember while reading this document.

  1. This report does NOT tell us the number of people who had been jabbed at this point.  The 42,086 in the report is the number of adverse event cases, NOT the total number of people jabbed.  Likely, the total number of jabbed was already many millions.  To be clear, I am not trying to minimize the damage that was done, but I want to make sure that you understand what this data represents.
  2. To be fair, keeping track of how many had received the jabs was more the job of public health agencies.  There may be other sources for determining the total number of jabs given by February 28, 2021.  If I ever find that information, I will include it here.  For now, that number is unknown to me.
  3. The number of doses shipped was redacted from this report.  That would not have been a useful number for analysis of this report anyway.  Pfizer would know how many doses they had shipped.  They likely would NOT have known how many doses had actually been administered.  A large percentage of those shipped doses were probably still sitting in freezers somewhere.
  4. We do know that by February 28, 2021, only certain populations had been allowed get jabbed.
  5. This report depended on reporting systems known to have a reporting rate as low as 1%.  We have no way of knowing for sure what the reporting rate has been for the COVID-19 jabs.  Conservative estimates are that numbers in this report need to be multiplied by 5 to 10 to get an idea of what the true count of adverse events was.  Pfizer acknowledged the reporting rate issue on page 5.
  6. Multiple whistleblowers reported that they had been discouraged from reporting, even though the Emergency Use Authorizations required that this reporting be done.
  7. Some doctors were not following instructions properly.  The CDC said that ALL adverse events in a specific time period following a jab were to be reported, and the CDC would sort out what was relevant and what was not.  Instead, some doctors made their own decisions of what was relevant and what was not, and this decision determined whether they would report.
  8. At this point, according to my knowledge, the CDC had not yet made its decision about the 14 days, but they did so very soon afterward.

The use of the term “jabbed” is intentional.  The injections do not fit the traditional definition of a vaccine.  The CDC recently modified the definition of “vaccine” to fit these new jabs.  They are gene therapies that do not prevent infection or spread.  Beyond this, I like the somewhat pejorative nature of the term “jab.”  It fits so well what I really think of them.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

Comments are closed.