These are the ONLY documents that many regulators worldwide (including the MHRA and EMA and, I think, the FDA and TGA) will supply willingly under fOI when asked how they concluded that the vaccines were “safe and effective”:
Spot the missing information and the idiocy in the trials - especially think hard about how the trials were conducted and ask yourself "how did the companies know the jabs worked against covid when not one person in the trial was exposed to any virus stock?”
And how does jabbing people with the chemical concoction, letting them wander around in public then when they got a sniffle give them a PCR test (we all know how useless they are for diagnosis don't we boys and girls) then say "see, those jabbed got the sniffles and a positive test less than the unjabbed group means it's working!!!"
That is how the trials were generally conducted when you read the documents closely - but do NOT think too much into what was used as a placebo as that just confuses the matter even more: hint, most trials did NOT use saline or glucose that's for sure.
How can anyone with more than half a brain cell or an IQ bigger than their UK shoe size come to a "safe and effective" conclusion I have no idea once they read these documents.
You may also like this on why no biodistribution info is in the PARs:
Seeing who Viki Male's father is explains everything re her position. Shame on them both.
Finally!!
I’m so glad you’re covering this Ignasz, thank you!
By the way... not a ‘she’
I wouldn’t mention it normally, but considering his specialty is sniffing out toxicities... 😉
Love the title of this piece.
This is great work, well done!
You can add the TGA FOIA revelation regarding the bio distribution tests that the Australian authorities did as well.
https://youtu.be/y8kaXrEQB5M
https://youtu.be/fVNFFtmb9gA
Or in this Japanese document:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/here-are-the-2-pfizer-documents-the
https://www.docdroid.net/A8A1VBw/pfizer-bio-distribution-confidential-document-translated-to-english-pdf#page=3
See you've included it as a download.
Thought you may like all 4 PARs from the EMA:
These are the ONLY documents that many regulators worldwide (including the MHRA and EMA and, I think, the FDA and TGA) will supply willingly under fOI when asked how they concluded that the vaccines were “safe and effective”:
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-janssen-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
Spot the missing information and the idiocy in the trials - especially think hard about how the trials were conducted and ask yourself "how did the companies know the jabs worked against covid when not one person in the trial was exposed to any virus stock?”
And how does jabbing people with the chemical concoction, letting them wander around in public then when they got a sniffle give them a PCR test (we all know how useless they are for diagnosis don't we boys and girls) then say "see, those jabbed got the sniffles and a positive test less than the unjabbed group means it's working!!!"
That is how the trials were generally conducted when you read the documents closely - but do NOT think too much into what was used as a placebo as that just confuses the matter even more: hint, most trials did NOT use saline or glucose that's for sure.
How can anyone with more than half a brain cell or an IQ bigger than their UK shoe size come to a "safe and effective" conclusion I have no idea once they read these documents.
You may also like this on why no biodistribution info is in the PARs:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/why-no-meaningful-biodistribution
Phenomenal. Thank you 🙏⚘