No, it won't go away. No, we won't just move on

Want to find what Pfizer knew their injectable products would do?

Here's how to find the info yourself. Just google Pfizer 5 3 6, as it says below

Thorp describes the COVID-19 shot as the deadliest drug ever, citing data which the drug company, Pfizer, the CDC and the FDA tried to bury for 75 years:

“Viewers, you can go look at it yourself. You won't find it on the Google search engine, because it's hidden. They don't want you to see this, but you will find it on any other search engine. Just go to Pfizer 5.3.6, and then go to page seven. You will see in the first 10 weeks of rollout it was the deadliest drug ever known to man."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

Is this the report you are referring to? if not please give me the citation that concerns you. Let us all learn from your wisdom.

FOIA Release - 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports: EXPLOSIVE
List of 100s of known adverse events for the Pﬁzer CoV-2 Injections
Technical Report · February 2022
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27753.77927

page 7 is a listing of classifiable side effects, one of many such pages.

Table 5 has the following:

Conclusion: VAED may present as severe or unusual clinical manifestations of COVID-19. Overall,
there were 37 subjects with suspected COVID-19 and 101 subjects with confirmed COVID-19 following
one or both doses of the vaccine; 75 of the 101 cases were severe, resulting in hospitalisation,
disability, life-threatening consequences or death. None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as
VAEDNAERD.
In this review of subjects with COVID-19 following vaccination, based on the current evidence,
VAEDN AERD remains a theoretical risk for the vaccine. Surveillance will continue.

WalterF · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2
158,000.
Beyond scandalous.
And yet they said "Safe and effective" - an impossible assertion, and therefore
A LIE.

[image/video deleted]

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@WalterF what is the source of this document? the side effects listed were those listed to be looked for, not necessarily reported, at least not in the original refence you listed! A ,misrepresentation is a misrepresentation. Unless you cite the reference and it checks out, I consider this is a misrepresentation of the document you had me read.

WalterF · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2
I didn't "have you read" anything. You chose to read it. For a moment, you may just have feared that your all-embracing faith in these "vaccines" was mistaken, so you were obliged to read it, and find specious ways of regaining reassurance in the potion.

The document presented at the top of this post can in no way be false, as it comes from Pfizer (conceded with the greatest reluctance, as they requested 70+ years (!) for the release of their full internal vaccine documentation, on the grounds that it would require too much work on their part(!) (So much for the transparency one would expect from a supplier of supposedly life-saving medicine to tens of millions of people.)

It is possible that the page numbers given were not correct, as the document seems to exist in slightly different forms.

However, the problem is obvious.

How on earth can it be morally acceptable to claim safety for a drug that had never been tested for its effect on patients who were already taking other strong medications? or for its effects on foetuses or pregnant women?

How could it be in any way acceptable to recommend such a product for use in children, when it was known that covid was a danger chiefly to the elderly, and that the <0.5% of people who died from this overrated flu wee in the highest age category?

How could any of this be acceptable for a drug with 175,000 possible side effects known to its manufacturer pre-release?

I repeat: utterly scandalous.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@WalterF You are getting truly laughable. I also resent your attitude. I admit to being an academician. As such, I always doubt what I think I know. That led to my successful career in research. You continue to misstate the175,000 possible side effects. That list could be used for any medication, immunization, etc. No where in the Pfizer document did it say that there were 185,000 side effects reported! Stop stating that error.

You also either failed to read the discussion of the reports Pfizer had received and the summation that very few, and I am being generous, of any reported side effects were determined to be related. As to what you describe as a chromosomal deletion, i would highly doubt it was related, since the vaccine does not integrate with any nucleic material, you can argue all y0u like about that, show me any evidence that it does. You also have to understand how the FDA requires side effects to be included in the package inserts. I personally had a minor side effect when I received the pre-approval rubella vaccine, i developed pain, arthralgia, which ended up in the package insert, I also was treating a child for lead poisoning using a medication for this new indication, so as with all pre-licensed usage, I had to report the ear infection the child developed. That was included in the package insert and is still in the insert stating a case of deafness developed in a child treated.

I have extensive experience in new drug development, and was very involved in academic science. I can support my statements with data, or I don't make statements. I would really like to read what you actually read to cherry pick what you did, particularly the comment about 185,000 side effects!.