Welcome To The Real World

So you just heard it from the horse’s mouth, Pfizer never tested the vaccines for reducing transmission.

… but I’m sorry to tell you it’s much worse than that…

Pfizer did test the vaccine’s ability to reduce rates of “Covid-19”. To be specific, “Covid-19” means testing positive and being symptomatic.1Which differs from what we, the people have been trained to believe Covid-19 means: testing positive. Oisín. The data looked great by the way, Pfizer had a wonderful graph to show the effect. The blue line is infections in the unvaccinated, and the red line is infections in the vaccinated.

Pfizer’s “infection reduction” published in NEJM.

But… That data you can see up there, the main argument for the vaccine passports, the vaccine mandates and all the terrifying media campaigns comes from a fraudulent study.

… forging documents, forging signatures, changing diagnoses, and unblinding the patients. A whistleblower saw it all, took pictures, took notes, and took the story to the British Medical Journal. They published it

It means the evidence in that graph is worthless until we get to the bottom of the fraud case, which is ongoing. It has the potential to become a trillion-dollar legal case, so how did you not hear about it? The BBC didn’t report it at all. But that’s not even half of the story…

When credible people tried to inform society about these massive problems, they were silenced. Was it some weird substack or blogspot page that raised these concerns? No, it was the British Medical Journal. When their article came out, Facebook labelled it as misinformation and throttled it across all social media. Yes, Facebook ‘fact-checked’ the British Medical Journal, and since they own WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook, you were much less likely to hear about it. Pfizer then lobbied hard to block legislation protecting whistleblowers who expose corporate fraud.

So, yes, Pfizer didn’t test the vaccine for reducing transmission. They tested it for reducing Covid-19, but the study they published is fraudulent. You can listen to an interview I did with Brook Jackson, the named whistleblower on that case, [here]…

The debate over the vaccine was tested for is valuable, but the elephant in the room is the massive ongoing legal case about very credible claims of fraud in the trial. So when this subject comes up, and it will, ask the influential people on Twitter and elsewhere if they’re at all concerned about the allegations of fraud on the trial. If they’re not sure about the case, refer them to the British Medical Journal or my interview above.

That’s probably enough for your first day. Now that you’re here, do you want to hear more? Because this story only gets weirder. Also, due to terrifying libel laws, I ought to say the trial was allegedly fraudulent since the trial continues.

Phil Harper
  • 1
    Which differs from what we, the people have been trained to believe Covid-19 means: testing positive. Oisín.