A collection of links, quotes and comments about them taken from this site over the last 6 months or so, put all in one place for convenience. Also worth looking at this.
“First, the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing the spreading of the virus and reducing infectivity, which is the most important factor in its ability to ameliorate the devastating effects of the pandemic, was not tested. Quite surprisingly, the effect of vaccination on overall number of virus-shedding individuals was not assessed, even though it is established that a significant fraction of the infected population capable of transmitting the disease are asymptomatic…The adverse effect section of the paper conspicuously lacks any laboratory studies, which is surprising based on the fact that in the phase I group there were abnormalities of blood counts …there is an unexplained discrepancy between the number of patients with AIDS that are reported as participating in the study and the number of such patients for whom there is available safety data (only one).”
Side Effects of Pfizer vaccine: 45% of participants in trials had to use pain medication after vaccine (from December 2020)
Serious violations and manipulations of trial protocol: How Pfizer obtained FDA emergency authorization for children
“Analysis and comparison of the review document submitted by Pfizer to the US Food and Drug Administration, on the basis of which the FDA gave the green light to expand the emergency permit for vaccination also for children aged 12-15, as opposed to the study protocol in children, reveal concerning findings, including violations of the protocol established by Pfizer itself, and no less serious, designing the trial protocol in a way that will allow the company to present as positive findings as possible in terms of vaccine safety in children….According to the review document submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, four of the 1,131 children in the study arm who received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine suffered from serious adverse events (“SAEs”) – that is, events in which at least one criterion was met: caused death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity, or congenital anomaly/birth defect. Of these four children, three had such severe depression that they were hospitalized shortly after vaccination (in the first 7 days after the first dose, in the second only one day after the second dose, and in the third 15 days after the first dose, respectively)….if Pfizer were so negligent that they included subjects with a psychiatric background in the experiment – contrary to the protocol they themselves established – it means that the subjects’ well-being is not their main concern. As Pfizer itself notes in the protocol: such a background may increase the risk of study participation. And if they do not adhere to ethics in recruiting subjects, who can assure us that they adhere to ethics in other sections of the study – for example, analysis of results?”
Pfizer was fined $60m. by US regulators for bribing doctors and government officials in eastern Europe, Asia and in the Middle East in the decade up until 2006.
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely responsible for deaths of at least 10% of elderly patients of those who died following vaccination
“The expert group was established at the end of February 2021 to look into the cause of the first 100 reported deaths of nursing home residents who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. …Although the mortality rate in nursing homes is generally very high and the deaths of some nursing home residents after vaccination was anticipated, the Norwegian Medicines Agency wanted to determine whether the vaccine had possibly hastened any deaths and to gain a clearer understanding of the risks and benefits of its use in frail elderly people. The review reported on 19 May and concluded that a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered “likely” in 10 of the 100 cases, “possible” in 26 cases, and “unlikely” in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed “unclassifiable.””
In other words, probably at least 10% and possibly as many as 36% of elderly people who died after having been vaccinated were killed (or had their deaths “hastened”) by the Pfizer vaccine. This report is already almost 2 weeks old and yet has been given virtually NO publicity in the media. Imagine how this might be replicated on a global scale. And yet any critique of this by the holocaust deniers is put down as being “anti-vaxxer”.
Just received: Belgium: Pfizer announces that people will probably be invited
for a third vaccine shot “to protect from the new variants”
Israel: Pfizer’s CEO gives national broadcast just before the official Israeli Independence Day ceremony (April 14th)
Interview with doctor critiquing not just AZ but also Pfizer and all the mRNA vaccines, explaining the complexity of the mRNA vaccines
“The Israeli People’s Committee has uncovered a multitude of malfunctions and failures at the administrative, ethical and legal levels during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign at the beginning of 2021 in Israel. In this document, we aim at presenting and elaborating the main features of these malfunctions, which have led to severe damages in many Israelis in the short term, and sadly to possible future damages. It seems that the entire country got caught up in a medical-social chaos, where the leadership has enabled a situation of fear and uncertainty to run its course out of control, and even contributed to its further enhancement. But most of all, we cannot ignore severe suspicions shared by all the committee members, that the fundamental sin, which led to the chaos and its casualties, is the way in which two very powerful personages, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla, agreed upon a massive vaccination campaign in Israel that is unprecedented in scale and nature. A vaccination campaign that lacks effective safeguards for public safety, that is devoid of any concern for people who may be harmed by the vaccine, and that has allegedly guaranteed to encompass populations, for which the safety of the vaccine has not been tested (pregnant women and their fetuses), and later also children, for whom the need to be vaccinated is totally unclear, while pushing aside any safety considerations. From this exact episode, where both parties came to an agreement regarding the vaccination campaign, which involved a wide variety of ethical and safety violations, an unrestrained drama was initiated that has revealed itself to be impulsive, neglectful and reckless. The agreed upon vaccination campaign concerns matters of life and death, yet is being conducted in an amateurish, irresponsible and aggressive manner, and it led to the political arena taking over the medical arena and bending it to its needs, while paralyzing all alarm systems, monitoring measures and open scientific discussion. Unfortunately, most of the medical system collaborated with this unsupervised process, starting with the higher ranks, and ending with field doctors – some actively, some by keeping quiet from fear of reprisal.”
Significant flaws in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial – letter sent to The Lancet but never published
The following letter was sent to The Lancet at the end of last December, by Michal Haran, M.D., Yitshal Berner, M.D. MPH, Moshe Royburt, MD, MHA:
Michal Haran is an Israeli Hematologist (with an immune-deficiency disease – or something similar, I’m not 100% sure – due to which she’s wheel-chair ridden) who I just recently heard about, following her involvement in the Corona debate in general and the debate about the Pfizer vaccine specifically. I respect her very much, especially her delicate and emphatic way of debating and the simple and down-to-earth way in which she presents her thoughts (mostly in Hebrew-language platforms). Needless to say, she’s ostracized by many of her colleagues and presented by most of the mainstream media as a “Corona denier” and “anti-vaxxer”…
Significant flaws in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial
Michal Haran, M.D., Yitshal Berner, M.D. MPH, Moshe Royburt, MD, MHA.
The global Covid-19 pandemic has not only led to a harsh medical reality, more so in some countries than others, but has also devastated the economies of multiple parts of the world. It is therefore not surprising that a rush to develop vaccines for the disease has engulfed the world. Pfizer was the first to complete a (shortened) phase 2/3 trial, the results of which were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine 1. Unfortunately, this article reveals significant flaws in the conduction, analysis and reporting of the data and departs significantly from the usually high standards of this prestigious journal.
In fact, to the best of my knowledge it is unprecedented that the corresponding author of this paper is an employee of the sponsoring company. This immediately casts a long shadow on the objectivity of reporting in the paper and the editorial decision to publish it 2. Indeed, a careful reading of the work reveals multiple problems.
First, the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing the spreading of the virus and reducing infectivity, which is the most important factor in its ability to ameliorate the devastating effects of the pandemic, was not tested. Quite surprisingly, the effect of vaccination on overall number of virus-shedding individuals was not assessed, even though it is established that a significant fraction of the infected population capable of transmitting the disease are asymptomatic 3. Only a very narrow endpoint, of patients who meet both being symptomatic and having a positive PCR test was chosen. This does not take into account the significant inaccuracies of the PCR test 4. In fact, even the large group of patients with symptoms compatible with Covid-19 but PCR-negative (not mentioned in the paper but reported in the Pfizer FDA briefing document (www.fda.gov/media/144245/download), with very minor differences between the vaccine and placebo groups) was ignored. Thus, we are presented in this paper with a seemingly very impressive relative efficacy of 95%, which in fact gives us no information regarding absolute risk (blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-dosh…, nor infectivity of the patients and very limited data regarding clinically significant end-points of severe disease, ICU admission or mortality. There is also no data regarding immunological studies in the various groups of patients. This data was only provided on a very small group of young and healthy patients in the phase I paper 5. This is important not only for efficacy, but also for assessment of the risk of unintended immunological sequelae. One cannot assume, based on such a small and selected group of patients, that there will be a good titer of virus-neutralizing antibodies and a favorable Th1/Th2 response in elderly patients or those with comorbidities known to have an effect on immune function.
The adverse effect section of the paper conspicuously lacks any laboratory studies, which is surprising based on the fact that in the phase I group there were abnormalities of blood counts 5. It is also known that mRNA vaccines can be transferred to the liver 6, thus one would expect that all blood chemistries including liver and renal function tests would be evaluated to ensure that indeed there is no risk of end-organ damage.
Understandably, the brief period of this clinical trial, two months, was an outcome of the general urgency caused by the pandemic. However, to conclude that “Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines” is highly misleading. The mRNA vaccine technology is novel and as opposed to other vaccines, involves the transfection of cells with genetic material , and only phase I studies of such vaccines have been reported prior to this work. One significant and recognized risk of the expression of a foreign protein on self-cells is the induction of severe auto-immune reactions 7. Since there is no information on the distribution of the vaccine in different cell types and organs following intramuscular injection (in contrast, for example, to another vaccine candidate, for which such detailed information has been published 6), it is very difficult to assess the relevant risk. Certainly, a very short follow-up period does not provide a long enough time window to conclude that the risk for auto-immune reactions does not exist. The paper totally ignores this aspect.
The paper only briefly mentions the highly recognized risk of vaccine-mediated disease enhancement, which the authors are fully aware. They wave this risk off as “theoretical”, and assess it to be unlikely based on data from 10 patients over a very short period of time. Clearly, this significant risk should have been much more fully addressed.
Finally, the fast pace of the publication of this work has led to multiple inaccuracies. For example, it is unclear how two patients in the vaccine group who, as reported in the FDA briefing document (www.fda.gov/media/144245/download), were hospitalized with respiratory symptoms and findings in imaging studies, are not reported in the paper as severe adverse events. Also, there is an unexplained discrepancy between the number of patients with AIDS that are reported as participating in the study and the number of such patients for whom there is available safety data (only one). This is very important, as the inclusion of a significant number of HIV-positive patients purportedly alleviates the concerns of the potential risks in this patient population. These risks stem from with the significant immune dysregulation in these patients, as well as the potential reverse transcriptase activity that could inadvertently lead to the unwanted incorporation of the genetic material of the vaccine into the genome.
In Summary, the way in which the data is presented in the paper creates a false sense of security regarding the efficacy and safety of the mRNA vaccine. This is extremely concerning, as the publication of this paper is important in promoting the rapid approval of the vaccine in numerous countries. I believe that due to the enormous effect the results of this trial have on the entire population world-wide, steps should be urgently taken to clarify all those issues. …
1. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020.
2. Haque W, Minhajuddin A, Gupta A, Agrawal D. Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals. PloS one 2018;13:e0197141.
3. Moghadas SM, Fitzpatrick MC, Sah P, et al. The implications of silent transmission for the control of COVID-19 outbreaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:17513-5.
4. Woloshin S, Patel N, Kesselheim AS. False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection – Challenges and Implications. N Engl J Med 2020;383:e38.
5. Walsh EE, FrenckFrench video of March 6th conference of dissident doctors RW, Jr., Falsey AR, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2439-50.
6. Zhang NN, Li XF, Deng YQ, et al. A Thermostable mRNA Vaccine against COVID-19. Cell 2020;182:1271-83 e16.
7. Pardi N, Hogan MJ, Porter FW, Weissman D. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018;17:261-79.
Official (possibly) UK government report on side effects of Pfizer vaccine lists 227 deaths amongst other horrors
Not absolutely sure that this is a genuine report from 9/3/21 (61 pages long ) or a fake one, as it’s not easy to check. But it’s the first thing that comes up if you type: UK reports received between 9/12/20 and 28/02/21 for mRNA Pfizer/BioNTech into Google. It’s been there for 3 days; given that Google seems to be vigilant about anything they consider is fake news, I’d have to say that this is genuine. Even more so given that this claims to be a government report, preceded by a standard government https: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ . If it was fake, given that it pretends to be an official government report, you’d have thought that Google would have pretty quickly taken it off. But I’m obviously not 100% sure.
It claims to cover all UK reports received between 9/12/20 and 28/02/21. Here are the essential results:
Blood disorders – 1 death, 2294 having various listed problems.
Cardiac disorders: 26 deaths, 1153 having various listed problems.
Congenital disorders: 0 deaths, 5 having various listed problems.
Ear disorder: 0 deaths, 819 having various listed problems.
Endocrine disorders; 0 deaths, 12 having various listed problems.
Eye disorders: 0 deaths, 1398 having various listed problems, including 15 becoming blind.
Gastrointestinal disorders: 12 deaths, 10,534 having various listed problems.
General disorders: 114 deaths, 28,195 having various listed problems.
Hepatic disorders: 0 deaths, 18 having various listed problems.
Immune system disorders: 0 deaths, 528 having various listed problems.
Infections: 38 deaths, 2059 having various listed problems.
Injuries: 1 death, 458 having various listed problems.
Investigations (not sure what this means): 0 deaths, 1073 having various listed problems.
Metabolic disorders: 1 death, 587 having various listed problems.
Muscle and tissue disorders: 0 deaths, 12,823 having various listed problems.
Neoplasms: 0 deaths, 24 having various listed problems.
Nervous system disorders: 17 deaths, 18,059 having various listed problems.
Pregnancy conditions: 1 death, 34 having various listed problems, including 18 spontaneous abortions.
Product issues: 0 deaths, 14 having various listed problems.
Psychiatric disorders: 0 deaths, 1409 having various listed problems.
Renal and urinary disorders: 0 deaths, 212 having various listed problems.
Reproductive and breast disorders: 0 deaths, 389 having various listed problems.
Respiratory problems: 14 deaths, 3986 having various listed problems.
Skin disorders: 1 death, 6809 having various listed problems.
Social circumstances (not sure why this is listed): 0 deaths, 20 having various listed problems.
Surgical and medical procedures (not sure why this is treated as a specific category): 0 deaths, 58 having various listed problems.
Vascular disorders: 1 death, 1119 having various listed problems.
Total: 94,809 non-lethal side effects of drug; 227 deaths (these are out of 33,207 reports)
It lists all those things under “Reaction Name”. I would have thought this meant a reaction to the vaccine not just something that happened to those who had the vaccine which would have included things that may have happened without the vaccine: the word “reaction” implies that. Particularly as they included things like “Surgical & medical procedures” and 1 case of “verbal abuse” under the heading “criminal activity”, a subheading of “Social circumstances” (in fact, many of the things under this latter heading seem bizarre). I admit the whole report isn’t clear and is quite ambiguous. Why for instance, under the heading “Tobacco use” (within the general category “Social circumstances”) do they list 2 reactions for “Non-tobacco user”? Does this mean that 2 non-tobacco users took up smoking in reaction to the vaccine? Why under the general heading “Surgical & medical procedures” do they have “Contraceptive methods male” for which “Condom” is given for 1 person vaccinated? Does that mean he decided to wear a condom as a result of the vaccine?
Nevertheless, despite these specific peculiar “reactions” remember – this is only the results after almost 3 months, short-term immediate effects. According to Pfizer itself their trials only officially finish in 2022.
Norway doesn’t alter its policy towards Pfizer vaccine despite deaths (from end of January) More here (Norway May Refine Vaccine Strategy After Elderly Deaths, PM Says)
“Having weathered the pandemic better than most, Norway suddenly made international headlines this month after revealing that more than 30 people — all over 70 and all already sick — died not long after being vaccinated against Covid-19. Solberg says the intense global interest in the news was “exaggerated” as she tries to ensure the development doesn’t put people off inoculation. “We don’t believe there’s any problem with the safety of the vaccines,” Solberg said in an interview with Bloomberg Live that aired on Tuesday. “But we will maybe not give them to the most vulnerable of the elderly, because that might speed up a process where they were what we would say at the end of life phase anyway,” so, “that probably is not what we will continue to do.”
“On February 4 a meeting was held at the Ministry of Health, dealing with vaccines against the coronavirus. At the meeting, Prof. Galia Rahav, the head of the Infectious Diseases Unit at the Sheba Medical Center, said that unless children are vaccinated too, we cannot vanquish the epidemic, and suggested proposing to Pfizer to conduct an experiment in which it would vaccinate Israeli children…She has received payments, in exchange for counseling and lectures (not on the coronavirus). This is disclosed at the bottom of articles she publishes in medical journals, which routinely require authors to disclose their funding sources. The problem is that the public which gets her professional recommendations through newspapers and television is not privy to this information. Rahav didn’t feel the need to provide such disclosure, and it seems that her interviewers were unaware of the situation….the financial links definitely place in her a situation of potential conflict of interest. This should at least be put on the table: but in Israel, financial ties between doctors and drug companies are kept shrouded, and Rahav is not an exception. Another senior physician who spoke before a Knesset committee, arguing in favor of a vaccine against cervical cancer, did not bother telling lawmakers that he had received funding from two makers of this vaccine, MSD and GSK. When I asked him about this, he gave the following explanation: “I give full disclosure in places where it is customary to do so, such as in lectures I give to physicians. I don’t declare a conflict of interests when I go shopping at a supermarket.” That’s how a senior physician treated the debate on vaccination policies in parliament….many studies have proven that money can produce bias in doctors’ considerations, whether they are aware of it or not. No one would accept a situation in which journalists reporting on the coronavirus also work for Pfizer, for money, at the same time, without informing readers. And these are just reporters. What physicians decide and do directly impacts public health, sometimes on matters of life and death. This certainly applies to people advising the government on policies. The public has the right to know exactly how much parties with vested interests are paying the physicians. Prof. Rahav told me that the amounts involved were peanuts, but she did admit that due to the modest wages she and her colleagues receive at the hospital, they need to supplement their income. Prof. Ron Dagan, her colleague in the team advising on the vaccine, also received money from Pfizer and other companies in the past. A few years ago, when I asked exactly how much he received, he got angry: “I won’t tell you how much I get from a drug company without a law requiring me to do so.” Actually, in the United States there is a law requiring drug companies to maintain transparency, and one can find at a keystroke exactly how many dollars any doctor has received and from which company. This transparency allows one to see whether it’s a matter of trifles, or of perks that could bias one’s judiciousness. It’s time for similar legislation to be enacted in Israel.”
From here: “According to data from Pfizer , 0.6% of vaccinated subjects presented “serious adverse events” and 0.1% “life-threatening events”. So far, official statistics say that 2.22% of those who have Covid die. On that basis you could say that Covid is roughly 22 times more lethal than the potential effect of the vaccine on the 109 million people (roughly 1.4% of the world’s population) who officially have had Covid. However, 2.22% of 1.4% = 0.0311%. That is, so far just over 0.03% of the world’s population has died from Covid. On that basis Pfizer’s vaccine could potentially kill a bit over 3 times more people than Covid has killed for the moment, but Pfizer would have to vaccinate the whole world, and Covid would have to stop infecting people totally, for the comparison to be valid.
France: reports coming in of severe flu-like symptoms as side effect of AstraZeneca jab and high blood pressure from Pfizer-BioNTech
According to some TV coverage, such effects amongst healthcare workers (in particular in Rouen, Poitiers and Brest) are making many of them decide not to have the second dose.
Delaying second dose of Pfizer jab may leave elderly at risk of catching South African variant…or worse
Rough translation of article by Dr. Gerard Delepine on dangers of Pfizer vaccine.
“…the societal argument: “we vaccinate ourselves to protect others” is … irrelevant, since it is far from being demonstrated that the vaccine is able to prevent or slow down viral transmission. In the current state of knowledge, the vaccination of older people with risk factors (population where an effective and safe vaccine could be useful) has not been properly evaluated, because the trials refuse to include this population at risk. ..Norway has just issued an alert on January 15 after the observation of 23 deaths possibly linked to the Pfizer vaccine in elderly people in nursing homes. Of those deaths, 13 were autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to serious reactions in frail elderly people…”
Rough English transcript of video by Christian Vélot, molecular geneticist, looking at the dangers of PfizerBioNTech, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Sputnik vaccines following explanation of the complexities of viruses and vaccines
“…Another risk related to vaccines using a virus as a vector, like the Adenovirus, which is foreign to our body, is that it can trigger unwanted immune reactions than can disturb the desired vaccine response. The body, not knowing what it is dealing with, feels overwhelmed and can attack anything and everything. …With PfizerBioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Sputnik vaccines there’s a risk of viral recombination, where viruses of the same kind share/exchange genetic material (which is the reason that normally RNA cannot be inserted int DNA and vice versa). So the question is of 2 RNA viruses or 2 DNA viruses . Recombination (exchange of genetic material) is most common amongst viruses of the same type/family, though not exclusively. It’s less frequent, but such recombination (not of same type or family) can make the virus either more dangerous or less dangerous – but unpredictably. Swine flu (H1N1) was a triple recombinant. For this to happen, a cell must be infected by 2 viruses at the same time – which is very unlikely. But this – the vaccinating genetic material and the infecting genetic material = a recombinant virus. The frequency is extremely low. 1 in 10 million to 1 in 100 million. For an individual the risk is so low as to be negligible. But at the level of the population of the whole world it’s a significant risk when you vaccinate a billion people. So 10 people could have this recombinant virus that intrudes into the DNA from the RNA – and thence infect others with a potentially more virulent virus. The consequences could be global! Since this is new and not been tried on a general global population it only makes sense to use the tried and tested vaccine methods. The Chinese at least used technology previously tester over years and years even if they didn’t complete phase 3 of the clinical trials before putting it on the market. 3 people in the same area and the same age can have very different symptoms. So add to that a new unpredictable virus with a new unpredictable vaccine method and….”
“In Europe, there have been 71 deaths reported following a Covid-19 vaccination – including from across the UK, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. Almost all were people aged 75 or over. The European Medicines Agency has so far said: “No death among these elderly people has been attributed to the [Pfizer/BioNTech] vaccination at this stage.” In total in France, 139 cases of severe or unexpected side-effects have been reported since the start of the vaccination campaign.”
“Norwegian health officials reported a small number of deaths among older people on Sunday who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and suffered side effects. While the Norwegian Medicines Agency is now investigating the deaths — estimated to be about 30 — the regulator and Australian authorities have been quick to play down any serious safety concerns. “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail,” Professor Brendan Murphy, secretary of the Department of Health… In the US, where more than 11 million people have received at least one dose of the vaccine, health authorities are beginning to see rare instances of severe (though treatable) allergic reactions to some of the COVID-19 vaccines. They’re also investigating the case of a doctor who developed an unusual blood disorder shortly after receiving the Pfizer jab, and later died. It’s not yet known whether the COVID jab is linked to his illness.”
Note the secretary of the Department of Health’s words “This group of people who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately some died, were very, very old and frail”. They were in their 80s. The King of Norway is 83. If he’d died after being vaccinated, would the secretary of the Department of Health have simply said “This man who had these adverse effects, and unfortunately died, was very, very old and frail”? Maybe Pfizer should change its name to Pfizeuthanasier or even Pfizeuthanazier and nazier.
See also this and this. “Norway expressed increasing concern about the safety of the Pfizer Inc. vaccine on elderly people with serious underlying health conditions after raising an estimate of the number who died after receiving inoculations to 29. The latest figure adds six to the number of known fatalities in Norway, and lowers the age group thought to be affected to 75 from 80. While it’s unclear exactly when the deaths occurred, Norway has given at least one dose to about 42,000 people and focused on those considered most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly. Until Friday, the vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech SE was the only one available in Norway, and “all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine,” the Norwegian Medicines Agency said…“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.” Official reports of allergic reactions have been rare as governments rush to roll out vaccines”.
“In a massive blow to Spain’s Pfizer vaccination plan, more than 65 residents and ten staff have tested positive for coronavirus at the Foietes nursing home in Benidorm just days after receiving the first Covid-19 vaccine. According to official sources, the residence previously hadn’t registered any cases for months, and most residents and staff had negative PCR tests shortly before the vaccine drive began on January 4.”
“The retired Spaniard had received his first dose of the vaccine on December 29, along with the rest of the privately-run home. Within days of receiving the jab, the man ‘suffered an accident’ and was transferred to a hospital where a routine COVID-19 test detected the disease.The rest of the care home was tested and an outbreak was confirmed after several more residents and employees tested positive. The home had managed to not register a single case among its staff or residents throughout the whole pandemic. It comes after another home in Vinaros, also in Castellon, reported 21 coronavirus cases on Monday after all residents had been vaccinated on New Year’s Eve. On January 4, a general screening was carried out and all residents and workers tested negative. But after a resident presented symptoms, a new screening was carried out on January 9, revealing positive cases among 14 residents, five workers and two nuns. The first dose of the vaccine does not guarantee immunization, meaning you can still become infected and infect others until after you receive the second dose. While the first dose has suggested it can decrease the severity of symptoms in some cases, it is not guaranteed.”
Not sure whether this shows that testing is crap or that there’s something dangerous in the Pfizer vaccine.
Much of this article is about Pfizer’s bribes to various medical authorities and doctors around the world, and about its grotesque manipulation of prices, but the following seems most pertinent in relation to whether or not to trust its vaccine:
“Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs. Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.”