Trust; Don't Verify

The new standard in medical research

Trust; Don’t Verify:

In something of a perverse twist on Ronald Reagan’s famous quote (‘trust, but verify’ - said in December of 1987, after signing the INF Treaty with Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev), we are being asked to trust our conflicted (as in conflict of interest) public health agencies … but denied any opportunity to verify their conclusions. Those conclusions of course can be summed up in three words: “safe and effective.” Really, that’s all you need to know (they say). It is good to know that our agencies are able to boil things down to where we can easily understand them. 

Our agencies were able to review Pfizer’s documents relating to their very-much-rushed clinical trials and virtually overnight declare that the data set is good, and the safe-and-effective mantra is pristine. The FDA along with the legal team from Pfizer fought a court battle to keep their primary source clinical-trial-data hidden from public view for 75 years; and they lost. They have been dribbling the data out for well over a year now and are up to some hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that are often inscrutable. My hat’s off to the intrepid team at the FDA and CDC for their being able to burn the midnight oil and proclaim the data to be perfect, virtually overnight. The volunteer team at the Daily Clout has had much more of a difficult time in deciphering these same documents. Clearly, the Daily Clout folks could use some pointers from the way-more-efficient experts at the FDA (insert sarcasm). 

Still, slowly we are learning what is in the documents and it seems that in their rush, the actual experts at the FDA may have just overlooked a couple of things, go figure. And the picture isn’t pretty. 

I have slowly been summarizing the “Secret Pfizer Documents” and herein will attempt to bring together a very abbreviated summation of the major findings. 

But first, it is important to keep these little factoids in mind: over 80% of clinical trial results are said to be non-replicable. That figure goes way higher when the results come from the party that stands to benefit from the results. (Again - go figure!) And the current structure in our pharma-FDA world is that both sides stand to gain hugely (‘bigly’ is suddenly the modern parlance) from having the “vaccine” clinical trials come out well. And yet here we are, foisting a poorly tested product on the entire world. Nothing can go wrong …

A People’s Report on Pfizer’s Secret Documents … to date:

One of the earliest reports from Daily Clout noted that many trial participant cases were listed as “not recovered at the time of the report.” The numbers of “missing patients” outstripped the number of deaths in the trials and thus we are left wondering … why were these patients lost to follow up? Were some of them deaths? Would that have changed the trial outcome? In 3.7% of known outcomes, the patients died of various causes. There are holes in our ability to analyze this data … holes large enough to have major implications fall right through them. Holes big enough to invalidate any conclusions (either good or bad) that have been made.

One document indicated that there were large numbers of ‘vaccine failures.’ Further, it is unclear why Pfizer (and others) placed all of their eggs in the basket of creating an mRNA based technology designed to have the body produce spike protein. Logic would dictate that having the body make in an uncontrolled manner, the very protein that is the toxin, might not be the smartest idea. Further, knowing that the spike is also what mutates most readily might make this further seem foolish (at best). This seems to have been the riskiest approach they could have taken and yet they were all in. Lots of money - present and future - is tied up in having the mRNA platform be a success.

We see in these reports that every norm and every precaution one might expect to be taken when proffering up a new technology was ignored when it came to giving these to pregnant women. This callousness alone should give pause in accepting any claims of safety.

You likely recall that for a brief moment, monoclonal antibodies were recommended for treatment and were used with some considerable success. Weirdly they were pulled because they ‘didn’t match’ the new variants that were coming along. And yet, the “vaccine” which also no longer matched the new variants that were coming along was still touted as being perfectly fine and effective. It was not. 

We learned that the FDA already knew that myocarditis was a concern when they issued their initial EUA for the shots. The documents construct a very concerning timeline of what the FDA knew and when they knew it. Since day 1, it has been full steam ahead with these shots. No wonder they tried to hide the documents for 75 years. When the government wants to hide documents, they always give a baloney reason. This ‘law’ is as immutable as they come: if the government is classifying documents, it is because they are embarrassed by what they contain. It’s virtually never a true national security reason.

One report honed in on Pfizer’s evaluation of the vaccine in pregnancy. They discovered that some 50 women went missing. Pregnancy was not to be evaluated but inevitably, and accidentally, some snuck into the trial. Best we can tell, 16 withdrew from the study and an additional 34 were to continue to be followed since they had already received the shots. They have been lost to follow up with no reporting found to date on their fates. Mere oversight?

Games were played with the naming of the shot. We were told that there was essentially no difference between COMIRNATY and the EUA product. But they would call it one thing when needed for the EUA to stick and another when they needed a fully approved product.

Over and over we see how Pfizer’s experts make an assumption that whatever an outcome, it is not plausibly related to the shots. So, if a certain outcome is assumed to not be caused by the product, you can never find a pattern of causation since you’ve ruled it out before you’ve even evaluated for it. Clever.

We find that the product contained micro RNA. Little was done to evaluate for any adverse effects from this unexpected finding.

Informed consent was not given in this trial. As more information became available, it should have been made available to the public. Instead we saw a veritable assembly line of shots with little to no informed consent. The drug information insert that comes with every drug .. was blank.

Pfizer listed shedding as one of their concerns. In fact, as part of their protocol, they wanted to know if anyone pregnant came into contact with a vaccinee. This was due to concern for shedding. There was no in-depth analysis of this phenomenon to be found.

One report hones in on the lack of clarity of Pfizer’s methods employed in the trial. Much of the trial data is still missing so that exact methods are obscured. One is left to wonder what specific criteria (if any) were used to come to the ‘safe and effective’ conclusion.

The point of the VAERS system is to rapidly give off a signal of potential safety issues. It is somewhat lacking in both specificity and sensitivity. That is, not every report is likely due to the shot and not every case of adverse event is reported. Still, estimates of under-reporting range widely with a 40X less number of incidents reported as compared to actual events being often cited. Reporting to VAERS rapidly exploded as compared to any other vaccine and yet no alarm bells were ringing at the FDA or CDC. Clearly, no number of potential adverse events was ever meant to trigger any concern. If the massive number of VAERS reports didn’t cause any concern at our public health agencies, one wonders why go through the charade of having a system at all.

Another report goes into detail about how harmful cytokines pass from mother to breast-fed child. We have known that mothers can pass along harmful cytokines from long before these shots or Covid itself. However, once again our agencies have been cavalier about looking into these issues. 

Who is Dr. Fernando Pollack who is a key ‘investigator’ in the Pfizer trials? It seems that he is both everywhere and nowhere. As far as the trials are concerned, his main arena was Argentina. Much malfeasance has been turned up in the Argentina wing of the trial. Both eliminating deaths and changing charts to make adverse effects disappear are proven by looking at the clinical data from the trial. 

Neurological injuries were evident already early in 2021. These signals were (surprise!) ignored. 

A Signant Health APP called TrialMax was used to collect data from trial participants. It conveniently made it hard to record any serious adverse events. It only asked questions regarding common insignificant reactions such as fever, redness at the site and so on. (This is the v-safe data.)

The children’s arm of the trials was also rigged for ‘success.’ 3000 of 4526 kids dropped out. That’s a full ⅔ of the cohort. That right there makes any results suspect and probably should have invalidated any result. Did the kids drop out because they couldn’t tolerate the side effects? This rate of trial dropouts is unprecedented for any clinical trial and suggests bad things were happening. We already know that in the case of Maddie de Garay her debilitating adverse event was dismissed as abdominal pain unrelated to the jab. She still is incapacitated from the shot but not acknowledged. How many more Maddies are out there?

Documents showed that mRNA vaccine ingredients can be transferred from one person to another through various means, male reproductive toxicity was never tested, and consequences of the mRNA and LNPs travels to various organs was largely under-researched. Also unexplained: why women have 2.5X higher risk of adverse events than men.

Pfizer had trouble finding enough cases of COVID to make their study statistically significant. Therefore they had to include subjects with deviations from their protocol. There is no way that they could evaluate for longer term effects of the drug in a short period of time. Destroying their control group by offering them the “vaccine” made certain that nobody could. Early reports of increased myocarditis were ignored.

Many issues with manufacture of the shots are documented. Difficulties with proper dilution and transport of the drug also complicated the proper administration of doses. Standard quality control measures were often discarded.

One report focused on autopsies, of which very few were done or reported out by monitoring agencies. It was left to a handful of independent pathologists to be curious about findings. In many death cases where families were suspicious that death may have been due to the shots (but of course were told otherwise), definite findings of mRNA causation were found. In one series done by Dr. Burkhardt, 77% were deemed most likely to be shot related. Standard autopsy protocols only picked up about 10%.

Process 2 was discussed. This is the actual process by which the mRNA was made for general manufacture. It included e coli remnants as this bacteria was used to replicate the mRNA through plasmids. The clinical trials however used a different manufacturing process (process 1) that was more expensive (and hence not used for large scale manufacture) but produced a more pure product. How does one assume that the two processes are equivalent and that the results of a trial with one represents what happens with the other?

Elsewhere we learn of confused reporting of outcomes. Large numbers of cases are left as ‘recovered/recovering’? What does that even mean? This leaves us with many unknown final outcomes of participants with adverse reactions. Unresolved cases and adverse events for subcategories that did not exceed a 2% threshold appear to have been ignored. What would the cumulative number have looked like if counted? 

2 ½  months after the ‘vaccine’ rollout, Pfizer changed the definition for ‘vaccination failure’ causing 99% of reported cases to not meet the definition. Doesn’t vaccine failure have a universally recognized definition? Why was it malleable here? 

Delays in reporting deaths occurred … allowing a better profile to be reported for the EUA designation. The data presented was that there were 2 vaccine deaths and 4 placebo. In fact, at the time of the presentation Pfizer had the information in hand showing that the number of deaths for each group was equal. Two additional ‘vaccine’ deaths were simply not reported out.

Pfizer was tasked with following outcomes in the immediate post-rollout period. Thousands of breakthrough cases of Covid were recorded. Further, their reporting dropped many reports that didn’t meet their ‘threshold’ requirements. There were several tables that showed 726 deaths in these first days. Another showed 1223. Why the discrepancy? Is sloppiness a feature rather than a bug?

It was also revealed that in Moderna’s instance, their SPIKEVAX was never tested for biodistribution. The FDA accepted results from a different mRNA ‘vaccine’ instead. In fact, they accepted tests from 2017 that were done on an mRNA shot (developed for CMV) with a somewhat different LNP. How does that pass scrutiny?

Some attempt was made to follow kids for myocarditis. They were being checked at 4 days, 1 month and six months. The study was cut short and was inadequate for the task. Might we have learned earlier about this real danger if it hadn’t been stopped?

One report notes that the FDA decided to have its ‘vaccines advisory committee’ and not its ‘gene therapy advisory committee’ review the product for recommended use. This despite the FDA’s own definition of gene therapy being the better definition for the product. Why?

Analysis shows how ‘vaccine’ induced injuries are hidden from view. The techniques cited are ‘time displacement,’ ‘throttling’ and removal of parts or all of a report. Is all of this due to sloppiness (enough of a problem right there) or worse, intentionality? 

—-- 

In a most cynical way, citizens and skeptics are NOT trusting and ARE verifying. And the results of this distrust are shocking. We know that there is a long and sordid history of businesses bending the truth in order to come to a conclusion that makes them a fortune. That is only human (and business) nature. And our agencies that are supposed to monitor these things instead collaborate with business to obfuscate as they share in the wealth generated. 

If you are not a cynic, then you are not thinking clearly. If you are not a conspiracy theorist, then you are not able to see patterns and draw conclusions. And if you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Yup, that’s where we are. And I am sure that we will learn more in the coming weeks and months from our citizen journalists and lay investigators who are doing the job that the professionals refuse to do.

In Health,

DocofLastResort