The FDA announced it approved Pfizer's COVID vaccine amid great fanfare. But what data did they use to advance from EAU to full approval during a new outbreak of a different variant? The same data used to approve the EAU. But the news gets even worse.
Share Post:
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on email
Okay, so I wanted to know how to sign up for one of these ongoing two-year vaccine clinical trials. Seriously. I’m willing to do my part for humanity like so many are preaching, so I decided to volunteer for the placebo group that all studies require. Not to mention, if getting jabbed with some sugar water gets me one of those freedom cards (it does, so mull on that, you Unholy Unvaxxed folks sitting at home, ordering everything on-line from tech overlords because you’re not allowed to enter businesses, but your card-carrying unprotected sugar-water-vaxxed neighbors can), I was all in. Poke me!
Double Unblind
Apparently, while I was busy with life and blissfully ignorant to why half of America hates me (this time), I missed the part where Pfizer and Moderna “unblinded” their studies and offered the jabs to their control groups.
Let me repeat: Moderna and Pfizer, just weeks after emergency approval based on early data from their TWO-YEAR studies, intentionally blew up their placebo groups, “per protocol.”
Options: Jab or die
According to reports, in January 2021, they contacted their placebo folks and scared the dog crap out of them (the way they’re doing all of us right now, so I guess the control groups served the helpful purpose of testing agitation propaganda if not vax efficacy), and – SURPRISE – the vast majority lined up to take the real jab. Poof! No more controls for long-term study.
“Rah rah rah! [Insert whatever Big Pharma says!]”
The diehard Big Pharma cheerleaders – er, the media – will rush to the manufacturers’ defense: “But, but, but, the placebo people could’ve died if they stayed on sugar water,” completely unaware of the facts (which are irrelevant when fear is your primary hook).
Let’s play a little game, shall we? Which is sexier?
“Thirty times more participants were infected with COVID in the placebo group, so we felt we had to offer them lifesaving relief.”
“98.5 percent of placebo participants remained uninfected, compared with 99.9 percent in the vaccinated group.”
Of the 44,000 study participants (which somehow got whittled down to 37,706), fewer than one percent contracted COVID-19. In other words, Pfizer decided to unblind its two-year study as a new variant began infecting vaccine recipients around the world because, according to Pfizer’s data, fewer than two percent of the 22,000 placebo recipients caught COVID-19, a defeated virus with a 99 percent survival rate.
If this is the standard by which we conduct medical research, we are so screwed.
FDA approved vax using dated EAU data
Pfizer used the same data to request FDA approval as it used to obtain Emergency Use Authorization, and bears no responsibility to honor claims made in its media rollout. Moderna stopped reporting data in November 2020 and forfeited its ability to conduct legitimate research when it unblinded participants in January.
The manufacturers’ clinical trial portals stopped reporting data in late 2020. So all those success rates you like to quote from the “research”? They have nothing to do with Delta, which the media wails, without evidence, is ravaging hospitals across America.
The FDA just approved a vaccine for a defeated virus, based on outdated data, with no control group against which to measure long-term results. How can anyone argue about research and peer-reviewed, double-blind blah blah blah and success rates and “health experts” and their “reputable agencies” for a pathogen they now warn has mutated into something entirely new?
According to their own published documents, the success rates they tout were derived from pre-Delta data, and control subjects in the two-year studies were unblinded and given the jabs while Delta was still brewing in (for all we know) some U.S.-funded lab in some other country.
Know how we said you’d be protected?
Now the CDC is warning, early vaccine recipients face “increased risk of severe disease,” after assuring us the jabs would protect us from COVID-19, and if, by some remote misfortune, we did catch it (which millions of vaccinated have, no matter what the media desperately denies), it would be much milder than if we received sugar water or nothing at all. Who the hell is measuring that? And with what?
Psyop: Pattern of deceit
Do you recognize the complete and total about-face? First they scare the poo out of us, then they’ll save us, then they assuage our fear by convincing us we’re morally and intellectually superior if we follow their commands, then they gaslight us and say we misunderstood them or “how could they have known?”, then they scare the crap out of us again, then they offer to save us again.
Reaper of havoc and cure
The same people who created the virus they’re offering to save us from today, have us so emotionally invested in hating, fearing and doubting each other, there’s no time to question them. But someone (who isn’t too busy breathlessly parroting from the first paragraph of Big Pharma press releases) needs to ask the questions. Like, how much influence did Dr. Scott Gottleib have over the rush to approve the Pfizer jab with no external review committee, and using the exact same data they used for the Emergency Use Authorization? Up until 2019, the current Pfizer director used to run the FDA, for gosh sakes. Might he still have some pull over the folks who make the decisions? He definitely knows which palms to grease.
Follow the money. There’s always money.
Who is getting rich off the hatred they foment? It ain’t the “mavericks” who parrot their every word, or the renegades who believe whatever social media influencers tell us. But someone is getting rich off this mess, and you can be sure whoever is raking in the dough is also yanking us around like Raggedy Ann in a nursery.
Pffft. What does she know?
Granted, I barely passed high school biology, but so did a lot of the people calling the Unholy Unvaccinated heretics for waiting on the science to catch up to the propaganda. I do think I remember the basics of research.
Before you commence to your biased Google research debunking these claims, I’ll save you some time. You won’t find mainstream reports on the loss of scientific control. What you may find, if you know exactly what words to use, is a whole bunch of “unauthorized” sites making hay about “science” and “data” and the travesty of conducting research without controls, and one teeny tiny mention in an NPR article.
What should have been the focal point was a blip in a story about the beneficence of the manufacturers for blowing up their studies in the best interest of their poor, unprotected placebo groups. You know, the way they do with dying cancer patients when they’re studying a treatment they know is working, while those who get the sugar water die. (Of course that’s sarcasm. That doesn’t ever happen.)
What happened to journalism?
While the NPR article dutifully carried the water of their masters, burying the lede in the middle of a “Don’t Worry ‘Bout a ‘Ting” story of the lone placebo recipient who selflessly declined the jabs in the interest of science (which, they assure, will go on, even without a control group), “unauthorized” and non-credible journalists donned their critical thinking caps in articles few will ever see, reminding their audiences of the way science used to be.
This is not political. Don’t assume you know how I might vote if elections were held tomorrow. I am also not saying whether anyone should get the jab. That’s your business. What I’m saying, that should not have to be explained, is that in every other case in history, Americans have had the ability to study their options and the freedom to make informed decisions for themselves. The fact that Informed Consent has been taken away should at least make everyone curious, if not skeptical, if not downright angry.
Instead of being angry at those we repeatedly catch lying to us, those we repeatedly catch gauging the weakest and poorest of us, we play right into their hands and hate on each other. All while using us as terrified, angry, obedient guinea pigs so they can keep pulling in billions of dollars an hour.
What did the FDA just approve?
tamimarler
The FDA announced it approved Pfizer's COVID vaccine amid great fanfare. But what data did they use to advance from EAU to full approval during a new outbreak of a different variant? The same data used to approve the EAU. But the news gets even worse.
Share Post:
Okay, so I wanted to know how to sign up for one of these ongoing two-year vaccine clinical trials. Seriously. I’m willing to do my part for humanity like so many are preaching, so I decided to volunteer for the placebo group that all studies require. Not to mention, if getting jabbed with some sugar water gets me one of those freedom cards (it does, so mull on that, you Unholy Unvaxxed folks sitting at home, ordering everything on-line from tech overlords because you’re not allowed to enter businesses, but your card-carrying unprotected sugar-water-vaxxed neighbors can), I was all in. Poke me!
Double Unblind
Apparently, while I was busy with life and blissfully ignorant to why half of America hates me (this time), I missed the part where Pfizer and Moderna “unblinded” their studies and offered the jabs to their control groups.
Let me repeat: Moderna and Pfizer, just weeks after emergency approval based on early data from their TWO-YEAR studies, intentionally blew up their placebo groups, “per protocol.”
Options: Jab or die
According to reports, in January 2021, they contacted their placebo folks and scared the dog crap out of them (the way they’re doing all of us right now, so I guess the control groups served the helpful purpose of testing agitation propaganda if not vax efficacy), and – SURPRISE – the vast majority lined up to take the real jab. Poof! No more controls for long-term study.
“Rah rah rah! [Insert whatever Big Pharma says!]”
The diehard Big Pharma cheerleaders – er, the media – will rush to the manufacturers’ defense: “But, but, but, the placebo people could’ve died if they stayed on sugar water,” completely unaware of the facts (which are irrelevant when fear is your primary hook).
Let’s play a little game, shall we? Which is sexier?
Of the 44,000 study participants (which somehow got whittled down to 37,706), fewer than one percent contracted COVID-19. In other words, Pfizer decided to unblind its two-year study as a new variant began infecting vaccine recipients around the world because, according to Pfizer’s data, fewer than two percent of the 22,000 placebo recipients caught COVID-19, a defeated virus with a 99 percent survival rate.
If this is the standard by which we conduct medical research, we are so screwed.
FDA approved vax using dated EAU data
The manufacturers’ clinical trial portals stopped reporting data in late 2020. So all those success rates you like to quote from the “research”? They have nothing to do with Delta, which the media wails, without evidence, is ravaging hospitals across America.
The FDA just approved a vaccine for a defeated virus, based on outdated data, with no control group against which to measure long-term results. How can anyone argue about research and peer-reviewed, double-blind blah blah blah and success rates and “health experts” and their “reputable agencies” for a pathogen they now warn has mutated into something entirely new?
According to their own published documents, the success rates they tout were derived from pre-Delta data, and control subjects in the two-year studies were unblinded and given the jabs while Delta was still brewing in (for all we know) some U.S.-funded lab in some other country.
Know how we said you’d be protected?
Now the CDC is warning, early vaccine recipients face “increased risk of severe disease,” after assuring us the jabs would protect us from COVID-19, and if, by some remote misfortune, we did catch it (which millions of vaccinated have, no matter what the media desperately denies), it would be much milder than if we received sugar water or nothing at all. Who the hell is measuring that? And with what?
Psyop: Pattern of deceit
Do you recognize the complete and total about-face? First they scare the poo out of us, then they’ll save us, then they assuage our fear by convincing us we’re morally and intellectually superior if we follow their commands, then they gaslight us and say we misunderstood them or “how could they have known?”, then they scare the crap out of us again, then they offer to save us again.
Reaper of havoc and cure
The same people who created the virus they’re offering to save us from today, have us so emotionally invested in hating, fearing and doubting each other, there’s no time to question them. But someone (who isn’t too busy breathlessly parroting from the first paragraph of Big Pharma press releases) needs to ask the questions. Like, how much influence did Dr. Scott Gottleib have over the rush to approve the Pfizer jab with no external review committee, and using the exact same data they used for the Emergency Use Authorization? Up until 2019, the current Pfizer director used to run the FDA, for gosh sakes. Might he still have some pull over the folks who make the decisions? He definitely knows which palms to grease.
Follow the money. There’s always money.
Who is getting rich off the hatred they foment? It ain’t the “mavericks” who parrot their every word, or the renegades who believe whatever social media influencers tell us. But someone is getting rich off this mess, and you can be sure whoever is raking in the dough is also yanking us around like Raggedy Ann in a nursery.
Pffft. What does she know?
Granted, I barely passed high school biology, but so did a lot of the people calling the Unholy Unvaccinated heretics for waiting on the science to catch up to the propaganda. I do think I remember the basics of research.
Before you commence to your biased Google research debunking these claims, I’ll save you some time. You won’t find mainstream reports on the loss of scientific control. What you may find, if you know exactly what words to use, is a whole bunch of “unauthorized” sites making hay about “science” and “data” and the travesty of conducting research without controls, and one teeny tiny mention in an NPR article.
What should have been the focal point was a blip in a story about the beneficence of the manufacturers for blowing up their studies in the best interest of their poor, unprotected placebo groups. You know, the way they do with dying cancer patients when they’re studying a treatment they know is working, while those who get the sugar water die. (Of course that’s sarcasm. That doesn’t ever happen.)
What happened to journalism?
While the NPR article dutifully carried the water of their masters, burying the lede in the middle of a “Don’t Worry ‘Bout a ‘Ting” story of the lone placebo recipient who selflessly declined the jabs in the interest of science (which, they assure, will go on, even without a control group), “unauthorized” and non-credible journalists donned their critical thinking caps in articles few will ever see, reminding their audiences of the way science used to be.
This is not political. Don’t assume you know how I might vote if elections were held tomorrow. I am also not saying whether anyone should get the jab. That’s your business. What I’m saying, that should not have to be explained, is that in every other case in history, Americans have had the ability to study their options and the freedom to make informed decisions for themselves. The fact that Informed Consent has been taken away should at least make everyone curious, if not skeptical, if not downright angry.
Instead of being angry at those we repeatedly catch lying to us, those we repeatedly catch gauging the weakest and poorest of us, we play right into their hands and hate on each other. All while using us as terrified, angry, obedient guinea pigs so they can keep pulling in billions of dollars an hour.
Related
Stay Connected
Latest Updates from Tami Marler. MBA
How the Hell Did I Get Here?
I have an uncanny knack for knowing when someone is uncomfortable with me; so I go out of my way to put them at ease