casually scrolling through this months phmpt.org pfizer pfraud pfiles, and what dost mine eyes behold! famotidine and ivermectine are covid-19 therapeutics in a clinical trial setting, whatever the fuck that means. is the #gtmp not given in a trial setting? fuckers
phmpt.org/wp-content/upl…
19/334 good to know it wasn't just bnt162b2 being tested in the clinical trials. somehow that fact rarely finds mention. and yeah, stabilising the cleavage site is gonna enhance "immunogenicity" aka damage.
was there evidence of "non-vaccine-related" disease enhancement or fertility/fetal dev/postnatal dev, though?
some interesting details on the april 2020 german human dose finding study
Phase 1 of the pivotal study seems to have screened for antibodies, and should have excluded! Phase 2/3 includes unhealthy/at-risk demographics, but no mention of antibodies. But we know they tested for nucleocapsid antibodies and enrolled seropositive subjects. ??? @Jikkyleaks
"we'll follow up on covid incidence but won't use that data" i wonder why
also peculiar: phase 1 subject booster data wasn't used and "will be reported at a later time". with how nonchalantly pfizer has brushed off EMA post-market questions and requirements, i wont be holding my breath. what did they see that prompted them to withhold this data?
"the selected vaccine candidate" why not just say which one it was? weird. very unclear/imprecise wording, were there 164 "efficacy events" in the 360 cohort? and some more unreported data. had no idea there's already a variant modRNA injection, must have failed hard.
C4591017 sounds like an exceptionally interesting read.
why different names depending on whether it's in an EUA or a CMA authorisation country?
the best-made plans..and a whole lot of disinformation! the vaccine doesn't contain an antigen, doesn't stay in the muscle (radiocoded luciferase rats january 2020), measuring modRNA in plasma is very much feasible, and more restricted data.
things that make you go hmmmm
36/334 efficacy calc populations for the US phase 1. so there was evidence of prior infection in a QUARTER of the population prior to 7days post-dose2? 176 infected in the ~21 days between doses in the non-placebo arm?
wow. 42k enrolled, 32k without evidence of prior infection 7d/dose2. what are the criteria for a case to be evaluable? reference to the central lab indicates this was exclusively PCR testing, not serological ab data.
fucking ridiculous! they only used nc-ab data from visit 1, and exclusively central-lab-PCRs for assessment of prior infection in consecutive visits, despite collecting nc-abs throughout? what??
dont cry for me argentina...how is it supposed to make sense using only nucleocapsid ab data from one visit?
how can they say this when we have the full nucleocapsid data?
hmmm, 83.6%+8.2%=91.6%. also interesting that there seem to have been infections in between days 7 and 14 post-dose 2
laughable. p53/334 has a very interesting table: covid cases during vaccination!
p86/334 just wow. the 11 days after vaccination fuck you up!
those are some pretty bad results, no? how does that suggest vaccination enhances natural immunity?
p99/334 check out those confidence intervals^^
that sounds like 12.5x more spikes than an infection to a layperson like me. also note the last sentence in the screenshot^^
is that how long you're producing spikes after modRNA application?
literally forces your body to make more neutralizing antibodies than an infection for a much longer time. 43 day vax sera being compared to 14day convalescent sera. working as intended, i'd say.
can you say "immunosenescence"? the difference between 18-55 and 56+ cohort is staggering. better keep those immune cells naive as long as you can!! how can you read this and think the injection is a good idea? 3.6x more ABs than convalescent sera!
charming. they decide how bad it is, and whether it even has anything to do with the vaccine. and yet more data "coming later"
make it make sense: lots of people did not complete the study, yet only six people "discontinued"
40%-45% of recipients reported at least one AE - but no deaths! wonder if there were some "not related" fatalities, though
fantastic numbers
not related, thank god
would you look at that! the unblinded participants were only subject to half the followup.
only 0.1% withdrawals mainly by the participant, yet only 72.4% of the unblinded population completed their dosing schedule? what?
the numbers just dont add up at all. and what do they mean by 1% of open-label participants came to the 1month/dose2 visit, but 29% to the 6month visit? how do more than 25% not complete dose4 yet only single digit withdrawals??
only half the study participants had 6 months of follow-up, and the reactogenicity subgroups all bled ~10% of participants between dose 1 and 2, except for the HIV+ subgroup, which gained participants..lol
p284/334 just a little cancer
not related
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.