I truly appreciate all of the hard work you have done to provide this information. Early on I became aware of the irregularity of Pfizer being allowed EUAs in December of 2020 when in March of 2020 NIH published (on PubMed) research indicating hydroxychloroquine was effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and in June of 2020's Journal of Antibiotics, research was published indicating ivermectin was effective against the virus. That they are being allowed to continue operating under EUAs when the "emergency" was declared over a year or more ago is obscene. Makary's FDA should have pulled those on Day1.
Under the EUA, there was never a need for the FDA to approve anything. That was all theater. The DOD or some other government agency sanctioned the mRNA poisons pretending they were countermeasures to some biological attack. There was no way that this deadly crap was not going to be approved no matter how bad it was. The FDA was used to help people believe that there was no danger...the blind trust factor.
Our country's and medical mafia's standard operating procedure firmly maintains that ALL drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons are ALWAYS safe and effective right up to the day you die (or are murdered). If you sadly were injured or passed on, it was your body failing...not the drugs and vaccines. There was and never will be any covid viruses.
I wonder why trial adverse events aren't necessarily obligated to VAERS/EduraVigilance? EMA Eudravigilance obfuscates the data so much it's crazy! Very few have dove deeper into Eudravigilance than me.
Sonia - I am very familiar with standard approval methodology, but for EUAs, is 6% inspection rate of facilities the norm? That rate sounds third world-like in terms of regulatory process.
Lack of inclusion of tox grading data portends tox data inconsistencies that were not explainable (thus not included).
Were they able to produce these data? If so, I'd be interested in the dating and batch identification to see if the tox grading were representative of the initial commercial batches.
- Any indication of overlap between the ~2,500 and the 3,000 non-recorded incidents of Covid infection? i.e., seems plausible that participants who were ill would not go back for #2
- Were the PCR thresholds ever released? One has to wonder if they used different thresholds for the two study arms
Thank you for this!
I truly appreciate all of the hard work you have done to provide this information. Early on I became aware of the irregularity of Pfizer being allowed EUAs in December of 2020 when in March of 2020 NIH published (on PubMed) research indicating hydroxychloroquine was effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and in June of 2020's Journal of Antibiotics, research was published indicating ivermectin was effective against the virus. That they are being allowed to continue operating under EUAs when the "emergency" was declared over a year or more ago is obscene. Makary's FDA should have pulled those on Day1.
Under the EUA, there was never a need for the FDA to approve anything. That was all theater. The DOD or some other government agency sanctioned the mRNA poisons pretending they were countermeasures to some biological attack. There was no way that this deadly crap was not going to be approved no matter how bad it was. The FDA was used to help people believe that there was no danger...the blind trust factor.
Our country's and medical mafia's standard operating procedure firmly maintains that ALL drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons are ALWAYS safe and effective right up to the day you die (or are murdered). If you sadly were injured or passed on, it was your body failing...not the drugs and vaccines. There was and never will be any covid viruses.
More and more it looks like covid was a 'live fire' exercise.
I wonder why trial adverse events aren't necessarily obligated to VAERS/EduraVigilance? EMA Eudravigilance obfuscates the data so much it's crazy! Very few have dove deeper into Eudravigilance than me.
https://www.vaersaware.com/eudravigilance
Excellent writeup!
Sonia - I am very familiar with standard approval methodology, but for EUAs, is 6% inspection rate of facilities the norm? That rate sounds third world-like in terms of regulatory process.
Lack of inclusion of tox grading data portends tox data inconsistencies that were not explainable (thus not included).
Were they able to produce these data? If so, I'd be interested in the dating and batch identification to see if the tox grading were representative of the initial commercial batches.
Excellent work, Sonia. Questions:
- Any indication of overlap between the ~2,500 and the 3,000 non-recorded incidents of Covid infection? i.e., seems plausible that participants who were ill would not go back for #2
- Were the PCR thresholds ever released? One has to wonder if they used different thresholds for the two study arms