Thread by @Jikkyleaks

BREAKING STINKY CHEESE🧀🧀 🧀

An excellent analysis by @joshg99 and @OpenVaet of the missing local PCR tests in the Pfizer "trial".

Just one REALLY important bit of information to add...

There were 207 missing local PCR tests (p<0.0001). @IamBrookJackson @chrismartenson

This is the substack that is a must-read.

The 207 number requires just one more step.

It's REALLY important.
openvaet.substack.com/p/pfizerbionte…

Every person who was symptomatic should have had a CENTRAL test and a LOCAL test.

The infamous Pfizer "95% prevention of infection" was a farce. But how did they do it?

The clue was here. It was a marker.

https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1535470923314528256

Only the CENTRAL tests were used in the @NEJM paper and the submission to the @US_FDA who approved the drug the very next day.

As if they *knew* what the result of the trial was going to be.

But if the trial was genuine, there should have been no difference in the number of tests sent both to the central lab and to the local lab.

Bear in mind that if you had symptoms your central test was not to be used clinically. Everybody should have had a local test...

But as is typical for people, not everybody does what they should.

However, the vaccine and placebo arms both sent central tests in at the same rate, showing that they didn't behave that differently

(p=non-significant)

Yet there was a VERY significant (p=0.000055 probability of happening by chance) difference in the rates of local tests being recorded in the database for the vaccine arm

In fact the vaccine arm reported local tests at a 13.3% lower rate

Now you have to take that rate drop and apply it to the ORIGINAL number of participants that reported symptoms AND sent in a central test, to adjust for the less-than-half testing rate.

1558*0.133 ==> 207 vaccine patients missing in the LOCAL testing group

Well, well...

By how many patients did Pfizer claim to have seen a benefit in their trial?

162 vs 8, gave you a "95% reduction in PCR positive symptomatic disease. So 154 patients "benefited".

Or did they?
There were up to 207 missing patients in this exact group.
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

Therefore EVERY SINGLE patient who supposedly was saved from "COVID" by the Pfizer vaccine appears to have been accounted for by the number of patients NOT REGISTERED as having a local PCR test, even though the groups were testing centrally at the same rate.

And of course the CENTRAL test results couldn't possibly have been "adjusted" could they?

I mean, Pfizer - who were performing them - didn't have any idea whose sample was whose...

Did they?
#taggate

https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1618470281718423552

And just to confirm that there was in fact almost certainly no difference in infection rates between the groups... if you haven't read this great independent work from @phillyharper it's definitely worth a read (and a subscription).

philharper.substack.com/p/a-public-ver…

So.. the question that should be being asked of Pfizer is:

"where are those 207 local PCR test results?"

@AaronSiriSG @BarnesLaw @barnes_law
#taggate #pfizergate