Pfizer Once Again Confirms The Red Flags Are Real
New Clinical Data. Same Health And Safety Concerns Over The Jabs
To borrow from the 19th century French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose1”—”the more things change, the more they stay the same.” He might not have been speaking of Big Pharma corruption, but the sentiment applies just the same.
The Pandemic Panic has come and gone. The Public Health Emergency has come and gone. Yet the red flags warning of the general toxicity of Pfizer’s mRNA inoculations against COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2i stay the same.
We are reminded of this because yet more Pfizer clinical and safety data—this time from early last year—has emerged, detailing the myriad adverse events arising from the administration of the mRNA inoculations.
Over 10,000 categories of nearly 1.6 million adverse events – many of them serious and debilitating – brought to you by Pfizer!
You might not have heard it in the news, but in recent months, Pfizer’s pharmacovigilance documents requested by the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency, have been released. They show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on.
Specifically, we now have Pfizer’s “Periodic Safety Update Report #3”, dated 18 August 2022 and covering the period from 19 December 2021 through 18 June 2022. This document first surfaced back in March on Austrian science blog TKP (archived here), which received the report from a reader who submitted the necessary FOIA request to gain access to the report from the EMA.
That 396-page document is accompanied by a 393-page Appendix detailing some ten thousand different types of adverse events arising from the jabs.
As Jessica Rose details in “Unacceptable Jessica”, there’s no real new information here. The Appendix in particular is just more data detailing the dangers and toxicities of the Pfizer inoculation.
I decided that since it is redundant considering the VAERS and other pharmacovigilance databases, that I would compare and contrast a few select adverse event types to provide yet one more compelling piece of evidence that the COVID-19 shots are dangerous to human health and should be called off of every market - human and animal.
Which is not to say the information is not important. Quite the contrary, it is “hard data” documenting the very real dangers presented by Pfizer’s BNT162B2/Comirnaty mRNA inoculation against SARS-CoV-2 infection—which is an egregiously long-winded way to describe what the FDA and CDC want you to think is a vaccine, even though it isn’t.
This latest Pfizer data dump also reminds us the significant (“shocking”? “appalling”?) scope of the adverse events one risks by getting the jab.
By its very existence, the safety report and its appendix document that Pfizer absolutely has been aware of the inoculation’s toxicities all along. With all the bureaucratic efficiency one expects from that bastion of the conjoined evils of Faucism, fascism, and mercantilism, Pfizer has been dutifully recording each and every painful encounter its clinical subjects have had with their concoction.
As Daniel Horowitz points out writing for the Conservative Review, the evidence against the jabs is unmistakable and unmistakably damning.
When reading what Pfizer knew early on juxtaposed to independent studies, it’s clear that nobody could have mistaken most of these AEs for mere incidental ailments. Here is a list of 3,129 case studies chronicling vaccine injury in every organ system observed in this Pfizer document.
Yet even this, appalling and damnable as it is, is merely restates what has been documented and established many times over—Pfizer’s own data substantiates each and every claim regarding adverse events documented in the VAERS database.
Appalling and damnable as this data is, it merely reiterates the equally appalling truth that the CDC blatantly lied about its own “safety” studies regarding the inoculations.
This latest Pfizer data dump does flesh out an important safety dimension: many of these dangers and adverse events are long-lasting, and even permanent debilitations.
The Pfizer data also shows that more than 60 percent of cases were classified as either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” indicating that a concerning number of the injuries were long term. Only 35 percent were listed as recovered or recovering.
There are a few other off-hand admissions as well, such as the US case fatality rate for COVID-19 being at 1.2% as of 27 March 2022.
Our World In Data puts that mortality in a visual context:
It’s worth noting that this case fatality rate was as of a year ago, and has been trending down2.
Despite the increase in reported cases during the BA.5 period, COVID-19–related deaths did not increase proportionally when compared to earlier phases of the pandemic. For example, during the Delta period, weekly COVID-19 cases peaked at 1,181,551 for the week of September 1, 2021, which was similar to the number of COVID-19 cases reported during the BA.5 peak. The Delta period COVID-19 case peak was followed by a peak in COVID-19–related deaths (14,557) the week of September 29, 2021 with an estimated ratio of ~12 deaths per 1,000 reported cases. During the BA.5 weekly case and death peaks, this ratio decreased to ~4 deaths per 1,000 reported cases. Furthermore, the degree of overestimation in the death-to-case ratio likely increased during the BA.5 period, as higher rates of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with subsequent reduction in the proportion of COVID-19 cases reported to public health, coincided with this peak.
12 deaths per 1,000 cases is the same case fatality rate as Pfizer documents: 1.2%. 4 deaths per 1,000 cases is a 0.4% case fatality rate.
Pfizer’s safety report highlights another important aspect of COVID-19: as many as half of all cases are “asymptomatic” (which means people either aren’t getting sick or are getting only very mildly sick).
A disease that is barely noticeable as such is a curious candidate for the R&D efforts to develop a “vaccine” cum inoculation, yet here we are.
Even those most of the data in the safety report and the appendix is a retread, restating mostly what is already known about both COVID and the inoculations, by far the most damning piece of data in both the report and the appendix is the date: 18 August 2022.
Pfizer has been sitting on this data since that time. The European Medicines Angency sat on this data until March of this year. But for an enterprising individual and a FOIA request, this data would still be kept from the public. That’s a problem—a big problem.
No one can possibly make an informed risk assessment about any medical product or treatment if they are denied information—and, for better or worse, the Pfizer data is undeniably information and undeniably highly relevant.
Without ready access to all available information, there can be no informed consent. “Informed consent”3 by definition presumes one has been given all the information necessary to decide whether or not to proceed with a particular treatment or procedure.
Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
Pfizer has been withholding relevant data pertaining to safety as well as efficacy of its products—that is not compatible with the principle of informed consent.
This is not a small thing. Informed consent is an ethical obligation all health care providers owe their patients, as the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Lisbon On The Rights Of the Patient makes clear:
Moreover, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights establishes that everyone is entitled to the equal protections of the law.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
When Pfizer withholds information, when it hides behind healthcare bureaucracies, when Pfizer does so without fear of accountablity or consequence, by definition it is violating the explicit rights of patients everywhere, and the fundamental rights of all human beings everywhere. There can be no equal protection under the law between Pfizer and any patient when Pfizer exploits bureaucracy to deny patients their absolute and fundamental rights.
All businesses have facts and details they would like to keep private. Such privacy is not necessarily for nefarious purpose. Still, any right to such privacy is voided when it is placed in service of the deliberate and intentional violation of both patient and human rights. This is exactly what Pfizer does when it conceals information regarding the safety, efficacy, and necessity of its products.
This is exactly what Pfizer did when it declared this safety information to be “proprietary and confidential”.
This is what the EMA facilitates and in which it is demonstrably complicit when it hides these reports behind FOIA requests.
This is not information that should ever be considered either proprietary or confidential. Rather it is information that should received an high degree of public dissemination. This is information that every person receiving or thinking of receiving a COVID-19 mRNA inoculation needs and is unequivocally entitled to receive.
Both as patients within any country’s healthcare system as well as as human beings, people have an absolute right to any and all safety and efficacy information regarding the medicines and pharmaceutical products they take into their bodies. The concealment of safety and efficacy information—which by definition a “Periodic Safety Update Report” must be—is a blatant violation of patient rights as well as human right.
The most damning information found within this latest release of Pfizer safety data is not that the mRNA inoculations are toxic and dangerous, but the fresh confirmation that the EU healthcare bureaucracy, just as with the US healthcare bureaucracy, is even more toxic and even more dangerous.
Karr, J. A. Les Guêpes. Paris Michel Lévy Frères, 1862. Available Online At https://archive.org/stream/lesgupes06karruoft/lesgupes06karruoft_djvu.txt
CDC. Risk of COVID-19-Related Mortality. 16 Nov. 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/data-review/risk.html.
Shah P, Thornton I, Turrin D, et al. Informed Consent. [Updated 2022 Jun 11]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/
Holy cannoli. Of course they can’t hide this too much longer. Surely they can’t. Must we wait until the legacy media dies and the coffin is buried before this is common, hideous knowledge?
Very well written.
I still try desperately to share this kind of information, but, of course, I'm known as the conspiracy theorist...
I simply continue sharing, expecting no response...