The latest batch of Pfizer documents shed a new light on just what was known — or not known — about adverse events, as well as efforts undertaken to minimise data instead of halting the injection rollout.
In previous articles, I made the not-too-brilliant prediction that Pfizer was dumping boring datasets to numb the minds of researchers and make them disinterested in the papers.
As a result, when major revelations appear, no one would notice.
Unfortunately, this simple hypothesis may be correct.
THE NEW BATCH
The latest batch of documents (January 2023) contains some astonishing information confirming that the company marketed a dangerous experimental product, skipping Phase IV trials — which are usually long-term, large population safety studies — in favour of a speedy rollout under emergency use authorisation.
The new documents confirm that the company knew about the increased risk of myocarditis, but did not pull the product.
Not only that, but the documents show track-changes in which both Pfizer and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) re-wrote key words in the “prescribing information” sheet (for health professionals), the most serious of all adjustments appears to be the rounding down of adverse events to zero.
The documents also confirm that the company acknowledged that no trials had been undertaken to confirm the safety of mix-and-match injections and boosters–e.g., a Pfizer first schedule with an AstraZeneca booster. Yet, governments told us it was safe to combine different injectable products.
In development, the Pfizer-BioNTech injectable product was called BNT162b2.
When it was marketed, the company named it Comirnaty.
THE DOCUMENTS
The latest batch of documents includes paperwork for the inserts, as well as instructions for nurses. In theory, these were publicly-available documents, but the public never got to see them.
The “prescribing information” draft is dated August 2021, when medical professionals and propaganda were still denying a link between the injection and heart-related adverse events.
For instance, the New York Timesran with: “CDC is investigating heart problems in a few young COVID vaccine recipients” — CDC being the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Notice the minimisation: “a few” and “young.”
A more accurate headline would be: “COVID injection increases risk of heart problems, particularly in young people.”
But there was no need for public authorities to investigate. Rather, the product should have been pulled.
Scandalously, the Pfizer papers were quite open. The prescribing information says: