Pfizer hid two deaths of the 'vaccinated' to get the EUA past the FDA approval process
Yet, even with such a small trial, Pfizer claimed that their product saved lives.
It is amazing to us that we uncovered the hiding of two deaths amongst the ‘vaccinated’ arm of the Pfizer clinical trial while doing a deep dive into the trial that was used to justify the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We were using the latest data dumps from Pfizer which were released in the last few months of court-mandated production. Our findings upended Pfizer’s claims of a 50% reduction in deaths by taking their ‘miracle warp speed’ genetic therapy product.
©DrChrisFlowers - Made with MidJourney and Photoshop
PFIZER HID DEATHS to get the EUA passed
On December 10, 2020, Pfizer reported six deaths in the trial to the FDA for authorization for the EUA (granted the following day). Two of these deaths were in the treated and four in the placebo. As a result they were able to say that your risk of death is halved by taking the BNT162b2 product.
HOWEVER, on that date, Pfizer already knew of at least two more deaths in the treatment arm which meant that had they disclosed these deaths, then there would have been ZERO or negative effect by taking their product. Whether that would have prevented the EUA being granted is another question, given the pressure to ‘rush approve’ a product without adequate safety testing.
How have we reported our findings?
Report 89 on Daily Clout tried to explain in easy language what we had found while writing our Peer-reviewed article on Forensic Analysis of the 38 Subject Deaths in the 6 -Month Interim Report of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial. Published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in October 2023.
What was the problem with the Pfizer Clinical Trial results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020?
This paper was used as the justification for granting the EUA by the FDA. The Lead author, Fernando Polack, ran the largest of the clinical trial sites (13% of the total participants), based in a military hospital in Buenos Aires in a site known as 1231/4444. The NEJM paper was probably written BEFORE the results were out, as normally writing and publishing a report like this takes months, even when it is marked as an ‘emergency’.
The message of the paper was that the BioNTech clinical trial had shown that the BNT162b2 gene therapy was safe and effective.
The methods section of the NEJM paper stated this was an “ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial”
Warp Speed and the ‘Speed of Science’: pressures on good analytics and responsible research
The compressed timeline for completing the clinical trial and producing a product for use in the population meant that normal procedures for insuring SAFETY and proper ANALYTICS and follow-up were not followed.
Safety of a new product takes a minimum of five, and more usually 10-15 years, to determine both short, mid and long term safety of the novel product. The LNP/mRNA platform had been researched since the late 1980s, and according to some, since the 1960s.
Pfizer stated in their documents that the trial would be an ONGOING PLACEBO-CONTROLLED……. trial. HOWEVER, the day the EUA was granted, the placebo group were all offered, and most were given BNT162b2. There was no longer any placebo group to compare Serious Adverse events to or other complications of treatment.
THE PLACEBO GROUP WAS DESTROYED
©DrChrisFlowers - Made with MidJourney and Photoshop
As a reminder, a placebo group is needed to compare against the group being tested. However, this is controversial as some say that it is unethical to withhold a product from a person if it has been shown to be ‘effective’. See this article from Perspectives in Clinical Research for a discussion about placebo usage.
Either way, removing the (control) group from an ongoing trial when safety is an end-point was an unforgivable blunder and invalidates any data going forward.
Hiding of data from the FDA to get approval: was this just a play, or a genuine mistake?
Team 3 analysis of the patient narratives from the Case Report Forms (CRFs), showed that the entries had a date and time stamp on them, and there were discrepancies between the recorded dates of death for the 2 (hidden) cases. During the trial, if a relative of a participant had died, they contacted the trial site, and the site had a mandated responsibility to let Pfizer know within 24 hours. The two ‘delayed’ death records were delayed by 26 and 37 days respectively. It appears that Pfizer not entering the death dates of the above two Subjects into their CRFs when Pfizer first learned of them – i.e., on the dates of death – allowed the company to hide the deaths until the EUA data cutoff date had passed.
There is so much information collected, that we developed a graphic that tells the story by the dates.
Figure 1 -
Forensic analysis of the 38 subject deaths in the 6-Month Interim Report of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trial. (2023). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 3(1), 973-1008
Further resources -
Reported on in:
Trial Site News
volunteer-study-groups-investigation-findings-may-portend-big-trouble-for-pfizer
intensive-interrogation-of-pfizer-bnt162b2-trial-dataappears-to-be-research-malfeasance-cover-up
Childrens Health Defense
INTERVIEWS -
Dr Naomi Wolf interviewed the lead authors on Daily Clout -
UK Column interviewed Dr Chris Flowers on Bombshell Report #89
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/pfizer-report-89-based-on-a-lie-with-chris-flowers
Nothing would or could have stopped the EUA. It was pure politics mixed with psychological manipulation. "We're never going to know how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That's the way it goes." - Dr. Ruben on the FDA panel
Ruben’s comment says humans are lab rats! Big Pharma has a history of manipulating research results and ignoring and purposely distorting the results to achieve FDA approval!