The Pfizer files

Make of it what you will.

I wonder why Pfizer wanted to suppress their own documents (800,000 pages) of pseudoscience junk from the public for 75 years? The answer is easy.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

There is a plethora of documents you can download yourself and view from the link provided above. As the files are in a zip folder and contain a few to 10s of .pdf documents pertaining to certain categories of their studies. Have fun.

 

Are you kidding me, these people fancy themselves to be politicians.....just stand on a podium and pouring nonsense on the crowd with no need to justify any of it.

 

People need to know that those who they believe to trust will listen to their bullshit.

 

The less you know about the competence of your medical providers the better off you are.

 

What makes you say it is "pseudoscience junk"? Have you studied all 800,000 pages? I mean, I'm not saying it isn't, I don't know either way.

As for wanting to keep this kind of documentation private, I'd expect it would be to protect their profits by preventing other companies from using their results to produce a similar product. I mean, I don't especially trust pharmaceutical companies (or for-profit companies in general for that matter) but probably not for the same reasons you don't.

 

I have not studied "all" pages. At this stage only 3 files (approx 450 pages). One of them being this one. 5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT
REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
Why do I call it pseudoscience junk? Because that is what it is. It does not protect anyone and why would this have occurred?
DID YOU KNOW - PFIZER Stopped Testing their COVID Vaccine on Animals Because they Kept Dying. 45sec video

Keeping it private, most definitely, but not for the purpose of hiding their proprietary rights or profits but to hide the results of the little testing that they did do. Why did the Supreme Court deny Pfizer/FDA/CDC's request? It wasn't for hiding their proprietary rights or profits, as that is privy only to the company. It was to hide the results of their own studies for 75 years.

Well, that's a start.
If you want to fully understand the nature of the big pharma beast, you have to look at who else is involved with them (financially and by agenda). The connections do tend to blow people's minds.

 

If that's the case, you might as well just remove all your senses and ability to think.

 

You still seem to be getting wrapped up in your rhetoric. You appear presenting these documents as evidence that the vaccines are more dangerous that was publicly admitted but if you're also calling the documents "pseudoscience junk", how can you consider them evidence of anything, positive or negative?

That's just a video of some unnamed political (presumably) saying "he read something". I'm sure the statement could be true to some extent, and it could well be indicative of something very bad, though it could also be misrepresented or explained with context. After all, isn't that exactly why people are fighting for all of Pfizer's documentation to be available, so we can know all of the facts rather than relying on speculation and bias?

How do you know that though? I mean, we all knew the testing of the COVID vaccines was limited because of the rapid timescales and the very fact they needed emergency authorisation.

No, it isn't "a start", please don't try to spin this in to you succeeding in convincing me of anything (I was just heading off the age old assertion that I'm blindly believing what they tell us). After all, I'm still not clear exactly what you're proposing happened, so please feel free to start your next reply with a clear explanation of your proposed sequence of events before getting in to any evidence to support it.

Well I've seen lots of the facts, claims and wild accusations in that area so I can guess they kind of people you're talking about. My question would be; what would their motives be to cover-up the fact the vaccines were somewhat less safe and effective than publicly claimed other than making profits?

 

So tell me then, what does the title of the Pfizer document contain?

Is there something you're missing in the title of the file? Do you only see the bullshit version that they're "safe and effective", rather than the fact they have been documented to have caused serious injuries and death? Why so many class actions have occurred and more to follow due to individuals that have suffered from the 'magical shot'. Yes, magic alright. It will turn many that have taken it from healthy to sick rather than protect them. The pseudoscience

Why would a Senate Committee meeting care for something such as this unless it weighed in as a scary fact, if it wasn't wouldn't Pfizer sue them?

You don't have to be a genius to work it out. As I explained before, the proprietary property is the company's secrets, such as the ingredients in a recipe. Financial information is disclosed all the time (if they are a legit company) otherwise SEC would be on their arse for answers. So when a company has been doing dodgy things and if the public knew about it..., don't you think they'd want to hide it, to avoid any fallout from it?

Well, I'll start a new post for that. I'll tell you about the pieces of the puzzle have come across. As It's late here and I'm very tired. Don't worry I won't forget. But I'll leave you with this to whet your appetite.


Listen carefully as he explains his equation explicitly at the 4:00 min mark.

Depopulation. The globalists want the world to be theirs, as there are too many "feeders" (us) on the planet that are using up their resources. Have a look at who are the leading eugenicists of the current time, the main one used to play with computers and his father was the head of Planned Parenthood, can you guess who? Here's another hint, he started a foundation and invested heavily in Pfizer covid junk shots.He's in the above video.

 

It doesn't matter what it says if you're declaring it "pseudoscience junk" though. If that were true, the title and contents would be meaningless either way. If, on the other hand, you're relying on the contents of these documents to demonstrate that their vaccine isn't as safe or effective as it was promoted to be (which is a perfectly reasonable position in itself), you have to be accepting that the fundamental data and science is valid. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Well "safe and effective" isn't a simple binary. As I said, all medications have side-effects and none are 100% effective but the actual formal and scientific reports published about the vaccines never claimed they were (though some politicians get ahead of the facts with their language). I totally accept that both the level of side-effects and the effectiveness were worse than was initially promised, which is a valid issue to review and address for any future situations, but I don't see how that is evidence of some grand conspiracy to create something "fake" or that was designed to kill millions of people.

That doesn't mean everything said in committee meetings are entirely true, accurate or honestly presented. Again, I'm not saying the statement is false, I just don't think a video clip of an unnamed political making an unsourced claim is a valid way to support it.

Of course they would, though there could be other reasons they didn't want to release the documents too (rational or not). Again though, even if they were covering up poor testing results, that in itself wouldn't prove anything beyond that companies failings and potential crimes (though it would suggest their vaccine isn't "fake" of course).

Please don't start another thread of post with a scattergun shot of "pieces of the puzzle" - I don't really enjoy jigsaws. Focus on one aspect (say your assertion that the vaccines are "fake" for example), set out a clear and consistent hypothesis of what you're proposing actually happened and who was involved. Only then should you be presenting in evidence, to support that specific hypothesis.

Where he said the population is around 6.8 billion and is set to rise to 9 billion (though he doesn't give a timescale)? He then said that with all the measures he promotes (vaccination, healthcare, reproductive services, etc.), we might be able to reduce the rate of increase but the population would still increase by around 1.3 billion. That doesn't support your "depopulation" claims at all.

 

They wanted to suppress their own documents because they had something to hide. That's what happened in the Brooke Jackson v. Pfizer/Ventavia case, and of course the court went along with the cover-up.

Fortunately one court in another case came down on the right side, forcing Pfizer and FDA to reveal documents now, instead of 75 years later. Shades of the JFK records, eh?

 

What were we all told was going to be the be-all and end-all of protection? That the covid vaccines were "safe & effective" and provide a high level of protection, but yet failed to state there could be a chance you could get messed up by them. Now we see a rise in deaths and injuries because of the covid vaccines. This is why it is pseudoscience, it does not protect, it harms.

As I stated above, was anyone given informed consent that took that crap? Did their Dr or person administering it tell them they could die or be injured? So that negates the safe & effective part of the equation. It is just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes the big picture.

I'm sure with a bit of effort, more details on the video can be found. Are you willing to go the extra mile?

Then what is your excuse for them wanting to hide the documents for 75 years, if not to hide what their junk has done?

Being presumptuous and a lack of detail in what you read. I did state;

Meaning, a post within this thread that addresses this.

You asked, do you want to know or not?

You do realise that the video was uploaded to YT back in 2010, right? So the numbers for the global population are correct. Remember the premise of the video, it's about lowering CO2, and as you picked up what he said well.
"IF WE DO A REALLY GREAT JOB WITH VACCINES, HEALTHCARE, AND REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES, WE CAN LOWER THIS NUMBER BY 10~15%"
Lower what again? His equation CO2 = P x S x E x C, the 'P' meaning people. He begins with the breakdown of his equation and says, "One of these needs to come down near to zero", and goes on to the capitalised statement.
He had 7 years at least of planning. Then his heavy investment in the Pfizer vaccine.

Billionaire vaccine proponent Bill Gates just admitted what COVID vaccine skeptics have been saying for years now: the experimental mRNA injections don’t work.
This interview was taken at the Lowy Institute, Australia, earlier this year.

 

I wonder how much Pfizer paid the judge?

 

You guys can twist anything!! It'd be funny if it was just pathetic.

 

You want to state this because it's your 'go-to' comfort blanket. I bet you won't even look at any of them. That's what's pathetic.

Tell me, why did they want to hide these documents for 75 years, any ideas?

BTW, if you haven't noticed, what have conspiracy theories got to do with having access to these documents?