It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.<\/p>\n
A key quote is buried on page 42: \u201cAmong 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 [who received a saltwater shot].\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Who](\"https:\/\/prepareforchange.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Big-Pharma-1622672514279.jpeg\")
<\/div>\nThose shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.<\/p>\n
The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all\u2014the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.<\/p>\n
To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.<\/p>\n
The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.<\/p>\n
The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?<\/p>\n
If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.<\/p>\n
But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn\u2019t the case at all.<\/p>\n
So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: \u201csuspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, you see, we can\u2019t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren\u2019t. They\u2019re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we\u2019ll never get approval for the vaccine.\u201d<\/p>\n
What does \u201csuspected cases\u201d mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they\u2019re unconfirmed cases because\u2026their PCR tests were negative, not positive.<\/p>\n
However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called \u201csuspected cases\u201d instead of \u201cNOT CASES\u201d?<\/p>\n
Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.<\/p>\n
By FDA\/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the way cases are counted.<\/p>\n
These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren\u2019t. Which is it?<\/p>\n
The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.<\/p>\n
Why do I say that?<\/p>\n
Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand \u201csuspected cases,\u201d they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.<\/p>\n
Which they didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
This is called a crime.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut\u2026but it\u2019s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It\u2019s a gray area.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo. It isn\u2019t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn\u2019t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou mean if we were being honest? That\u2019s a joke, right? We\u2019re not honest. Don\u2019t you get it?\u201d<\/p>\n
Yes. I get it. You\u2019re criminals. Killers.<\/p>\n
But wait. There\u2019s more. The FDA document also states: \u201cSuspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became \u201csuspected COVID cases.\u201d This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: \u201cIt is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we\u2019re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it\u2019s of no importance.<\/p>\n
Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s called cooking the data. It\u2019s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group\u2014and instead saying, \u201cThe vaccine is safe and effective.\u201d<\/p>\n
And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called \u201csuspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,\u201d and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.<\/p>\n
Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.<\/p>\n
Finally: When you have \u201csuspected cases,\u201d and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each \u201csuspected case\u201d becomes an actual case or no case at all.<\/p>\n
Perhaps these \u201csuspected cases\u201d in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases\u2014but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.<\/p>\n
Or if you really don\u2019t want to know whether \u201csuspected cases\u201d are actual cases, you don\u2019t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.<\/p>\n
Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying \u201cwe don\u2019t know\u201d is nothing more than a con and a hustle.<\/p>\n
I\u2019d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:<\/p>\n
\u201cSo you\u2019re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn\u2019t be adjudicated one way or another?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s right. Their PCR tests were \u2018indeterminate\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat says something devastating about the test itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, sometimes you just can\u2019t tell whether it\u2019s positive or negative.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI see. And this \u2018indeterminate\u2019 result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI guess so, yes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo. That wouldn\u2019t work.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy not?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause\u2026the actual virus\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cRight.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo tell me\u2014what does that indicate? I\u2019ll tell you what it indicates. You can\u2019t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have to go. I\u2019m late for a meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cAbsolutely not. That\u2019s outrageous.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat then?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe PO Box is in Virginia.\u201d<\/p>\n