Bombshell: Pfizer, Moderna & Janssen Documents Submitted to FDA Hint at Collaboration
Bombshell: Pfizer, Moderna & Janssen Documents Submitted to FDA Hint at Collaboration
Well, this is not surprising, but it is confirming what we already knew and that is that the Food and Drug Administration is corrupt and so are Big Pharma corporations such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now, bombshell documents reveal that these entities were more than likely colluding in pushing their dangerous, experimental shots onto the unsuspecting population, which means that some heads should be rolling quite literally.
Recently, while perusing the numerous news feeds and sources that I monitor, there was a story by Red Wave Press that captured my attention. The author, Thomas Harrington, had received the summaries of the clinical findings of Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) back in December of 2020 through February of 2021, not long after each obtained Emergency Use Authorization. Harrington proceeded to read the clinical findings. What he discovered was extraordinary!
Harrington wrote:
The first thing I did when the three Covid vaccines were given their Emergency Use Authorizations between mid-December 2020 and late February of 2021 was to seek out the summaries of the clinical findings that had led to these regulatory actions. I quickly found them and delved into what they had to say on protection against infection and transmission.
I did so because my intuitions, backed by my reading of non-mainstream sources, had long suggested to me that the endgame envisioned by those managing the pandemic was to impose vaccine mandates on as many people and as many populations as they could.
And I knew that the ability to successfully implement this plan of widespread vaccination would hinge, or at least should hinge, on the ability to substantiate the injections’ effectiveness in the key realms mentioned above: preventing infection and transmission.
What has the public been hearing about these injections? Remember, these do not fit the definition of a “vaccine” despite every talking head, public health official, doctor, and scientist ad nauseum calling them “vaccines”. The public was told these “vaccines” prevented infection and transmission for months on end. But, early on, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Fauci, and others knew this was false.
Contained in the documents of all three pharmaceutical entities, which did not need to be read to know there is no vaccine that has ever been proven to prevent infection or transmission, was the definitive proof of the spread of misinformation by those in government employed by the government agencies, to include the demented-in-chief, his minions, and the regime. Moreover, it proved that Operation Mockingbird media, social platform moguls, and other entities conspired to present misinformation, lies, and falsehoods to the public while censoring those exposing the truth.
Harrington first discussed the Pfizer documents.
The first company to receive approval, and hence to have a briefing document issued about its product by the FDA, was Pfizer. Shortly after the document was published on December 10th, 2020 I read the 53-page document and zeroed in on the section titled “Known Benefits” (p.46) where I found the following three-line summary:
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 after Dose 1 and before Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed severe COVID-19 any time after Dose 1
Hmm, that’s funny I thought, there was nothing about the ability to do what government officials and media talking heads were clearly suggesting they would do: stop people from getting infected and passing on the virus.
I kept on reading and came to another much longer section on “Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps.” There I learned that there was not enough information from the limited trials to make any solid affirmative claims about (I’m quoting here):
- Vaccine Duration of protection
- Vaccine Efficacy with immunosuppressed populations
- Vaccine Effectiveness in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2
- Vaccine Effectiveness in pediatric populations
- Vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic infection
- Vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects of COVID-19 disease
- Vaccine effectiveness against mortality
- Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2
And in the midst of all of these de facto admissions of their limits, I found the paragraph below—listed under the heading of “Future vaccine effectiveness as influenced by characteristics of the pandemic, changes in the virus, and/or potential effects of co-infections”—which seems to indicate that the makers of the vaccines and the regulators overseeing their efforts were well aware that any initial efficacy could quickly be rendered nil by the fast-mutating nature of the virus:
“The study enrollment and follow-up occurred during the period of July 27 to November 14, 2020, in various geographical locations. The evolution of the pandemic characteristics, such as increased attack rates, increased exposure of subpopulations, as well as potential changes in the virus infectivity, antigenically significant mutations to the S protein, and/or the effect of co-infections may potentially limit the generalizability of the efficacy conclusions over time. Continued evaluation of vaccine effectiveness following the issuance of a EUA and/or licensure will be critical to address these uncertainties.”
So, not only did the government know these would not prevent infection or transmission, the government knew efficacy would wane over time. What would be the point of taking this injection knowing these facts? There would be none; hence, why all these people lied.
Harrington also discovered the exact same language was contained in the Moderna and Janssen documents.
When I checked on the Moderna briefing document issued a week later, I found virtually the same set of disclaimers (starting on page 48) issued in virtually the same language. And when the FDA released the Janssen briefing document on February 26th, 2021, there was yet another rehash (starting on page 55) of the same disclaimers in essentially the same idiom.
I was stunned. The issuance of these documents coincided with the kick-off of the vaccination campaign in which they were clearly being sold to the public on the basis of their ability to stop infection and transmission. To say the least, they were oversold by most of the top public-health officials and TV pundits, including most of the people, relied upon as experts.
Is it, and was it, really plausible to believe that the officials who were leading the vaccine charge on this basis were unaware of what I found in an effortless internet search?
I would say no.
Upon reading the entire column by Harrington, I delved into the documents, particularly focusing on what Harrington isolated in all three documents. What I have found plausible is two scenarios. First, the same individual wrote all three documents separately for Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen; or, second, the pharmaceutical companies – Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen – collaborated together in their “clinical research and trials” and commissioned the same individual to write the documents, using a little different language, to appear each was done separately.
How did I arrive at those conclusions? Simple. Each writer has a unique “voice” or style of writing. Different writers use different phrases, idioms, descriptions, or wording to say the same things. When you read articles at The Sons of Liberty Media regularly, you can distinguish one writer from another by their “voice” or style of writing without needing to look at the author’s name. In the documents by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen, the same exact phrases are used in certain places and slight variations are used in order to attempt to “differentiate” between the companies and writers.
Other clues involve syntax, sentence structure, and the overall composition of the documents. Are there standards to writing scientific papers and research findings? Yes, there are. However, one does not usually find the exact same words and phrases used, similar sentence structure or syntax in different papers, and findings authored by different individuals. And, when finding these similarities, one then looks for a few changes to make the documents appear to be separately issued entities submitted by separate writers.
These exact same sentences appear in all three documents.
As the interim and final analyses have a limited length of follow-up, it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.
Although the proportion of participants at high risk of severe COVID-19 is adequate for the overall evaluation of safety in the available follow-up period, the subsets of certain groups such as immunocompromised individuals (e.g., those with HIV/AIDS) are too small to evaluate efficacy outcomes.
And, these paragraphs appear verbatim in all three, with the only difference being the number of references.
COVID-19 disease may have long-term effects on certain organs, and at present, it is not possible to assess whether the vaccine will have an impact on specific long-term sequelae of COVID-19 disease in individuals who are infected despite vaccination. Demonstrated high efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 should translate to overall prevention of COVID-19-related sequelae in vaccinated populations, though it is possible that asymptomatic infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections and may be associated with sequelae that are either late-onset or undetected at the time of infection (e.g., myocarditis). Additional evaluations will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing long-term effects of COVID-19, including data from clinical trials and from the vaccine’s use post-authorization.
A larger number of individuals at high risk of COVID-19 and higher attack rates would be needed to confirm the efficacy of the vaccine against mortality. However, non-COVID vaccines (e.g., influenza) that are efficacious against disease have also been shown to prevent disease-associated death. Benefits in preventing death should be evaluated in large observational studies following authorization.
Several paragraphs in these same sections read alike with small variations of words and information; but, the structure and syntax are too similar to be a coincidence.
Read the documents for yourself and form your own opinion. After seeing these documents and looking at more than these few examples, it not only is plausible for collaboration between these pharmaceutical agencies and a single writer; but, it could be plausible to call it a conspiracy. Why would not anyone at the FDA or other agency see this when reviewing the documents? Maybe plenty did, which is why it wants so long to release all of this documentation.
Comments
Post a Comment