are we pfinding pfizer pfraud? (part 2)
more on trial site shenanigans and questions about the pfizer vaccine trial
this is the companion piece to part one which can be read here:
there is another mystery to be piled on top of site 1231, and that is site 4444.
and this one is more mysterious, because site 4444 does not appear to exist.
all the sites are listed HERE.
but that one is not. which is curious. especially as all the site numbers stop at 1270. there are no other site numbers above that.
and yet, we then see this:
all these patients were “enrolled” in one week. and according to certain clever rodents, this was a special week. an important week:
and this looks to have had the potential to be some “important data.”
placebo cases shot up in that last week racking up ~20% of total occurrence in the final 6 days of the 105 day period.
so 20% of bad outcomes in control arm in 5.7% of days, well over triple the baseline rate.
637 patients. out of 22k. 20% of bad outcomes. 2.9% of patients.
there sure are a LOT of coincidences around here.
many are now saying that this site is actually a second batch of enrollees run through site 1231.
and steve kirsch seems to agree.
i have not personally confirmed this, but it looks like a lot of people have, so i suspect it’s a pretty good thesis to work from unless someone has another view. (or if someone can show me how to validate this, i’d be grateful)
regardless, we sure do have some 4444’s…
however one slices it, this is another fertile field for investigation.
and other fields keep emerging:
our intrepid mouse also unearthed this:
to see such identical results across so many sites is essentially mathematically impossible. the best case here is that it’s some kind of profound data error which, alone, would be a serious problem.
or, maybe it’s just a sign they were making stuff up.
all in all, there are an astonishing number of signs here that the data in the trial used to get an EUA for a vaccine that has been given to nearly a billion people worldwide has severe, unaddressed quality concerns.
is this data trustworthy? was it gathered and documented properly by qualified, dispassionate people? was it really gathered at all? or were large swathes of it created to suit outcomes needs by fiction writers posing as medical staff?
because something here looks badly awry and warrants explication.
it might also start to go a long way toward explaining why the real world performance of these mRNA products instantly diverged so severely from claimed trial results.
it’s not like this would be the first case of completely made up data being used in widely published covid studies.
remember the surgisphere study? that made up its covid data? in 2020?
this got published in 2 major journals, among the most prestigious in the world.
it took twitter 3 fricking days to tear it to shreds and leave it dead and discredited.
i remember, because i was there.
even “science” wound up dunking on them.
“Who's to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal
Author partnership on coronavirus papers is “completely bizarre” and should have been a red flag, former journal editor say.
and who knows how many others.
they may well have been “stunned” and “called for reviews on how science is conducted” but this all fell on deaf ears.
nothing changed. instead, it got worse.
every standard of care, review, and analysis got thrown out the window, corner cut, or outright ignored during covid. i have never seen anything remotely like it.
remdesivir was cleared for use despite completely missing its prospective clinical end point and remains approved despite having failed in dozens of post use studies. it’s a junk drug that skated by on deeply suspect machinations.
the FDA has abrogated nearly every duty it allegedly held during covid, skipped panels, overruled them, allowed post facto endpoint shifting, and seems to have had zero interest in safety, risks, or validation.
they vilified safe drugs and treatments from ivermectin to vitamin D to budesonide while pushing far more dangerous options with suspect efficacy and serious risk profiles.
it’s been a stunning volte face from when gottleib was running the agency and they were truly the global gold standard. i’ve never seen a regulator devolve at such speed and to describe gottleib’s mid-term out of the blue resignation in april of 2019 to go join the board of pfizer as a watershed seems an understatement. given what happened right after and the evidence that covid19 was likely already circulating by then, the whole thing is more than a little provocative.
but it’s all a sea of circumstantial evidence.
but perhaps it won’t be for long.
these data dumps will keep coming all summer and pieces are going to come together and one way or another, proof is going to emerge.
the analytical ecosystem to read and parse these documents is unlike anything any major corporation has ever faced before.
they cannot bury us with data, we’re going to overwhelm them with capacity to read it.
the documents are all HERE.
already, FDA negligence or outright complicity looks staggering.
and more will come. and more will gather to stitch them together and draw the map of where the bodies are buried.
and then we’re going to dig.
this whole thing has stunk to high hell.
and when anything smells like this, the odds on bet is that it has something rotten in the middle.
it’s just a question of what.
so let’s find out.
and if they want to wager that they can bury team reality and the 20 other tribes of truth seekers, scientists, statisticians, biotechnologists, and bean-counters under so much data that we cannot find it:
see you on the playing field.