Pfizer Data

The MOST Important Data (that's STILL being overlooked)

How many total were originally enrolled in the early trials? What % of these were “excluded” and WHY were they excluded? Were they “excluded” after they were jabbed? YES! In searching the data, here’s what I found out:

1. Over 95,687 were originally “enrolled”. These people were all jabbed at least once. This was not easy to tabulate, as all of their sets are stratified in such a way as to obfuscate and hinder any attempts to make this determination. It’s Pfizer’s intentional “find the banana in the picture” game.

2. Over 10k who had enrolled, (who DID get the 1st jabs) were later “excluded” completely, (“coded” out), never followed-up on, and they never appeared again AT ALL in Pfizer’s final “safety” report, wherein Pfizer played a nice little “word salad” game by only noting that, of the “participants” only about 1% were “excluded”. Red Hearing much? Read on:

3. But wait, what about that 11% (over 10K) of the ENROLLED (and jabbed) subjects who were ALSO “coded” OUT of the study? SEE: 16.2.3.1 Listing of Subjects Excluded From All-Available and Evaluable Efficacy Populations HERE: https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-fa-interim-excluded-patients-sensitive.pdf This set is 1,448 pages long, with an average of 7.5 excluded enrollees per-page.

4. Most of these 11% (of the total enrollees) were initially coded-out (and no longer referred to as “participants”) AFTER they’d gotten their 1st jab, and/or their 2nd jab, but the 2nd jab was outside of a “predefined window”. I’m still studying what all of the “codes” actually apply to. The ones I have been able to locate are TERRIFYING.

5. The people who refused the 2nd jab dropped out, or were “coded out” (and so only got one dose, or didn’t end up taking a 2nd dose “within the redefined window”) appear to have either been so severely injured (and/or they were now DEAD) that there was simply no way to inject them again, in order to keep them listed as ongoing “participants” that would be mentioned in the final “safety” report.

6. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with a rate of 11% or higher (of the total enrollees) who had ZERO follow-up once they’d been “coded-out” of the study altogether. But this was AFTER they’d been injected with a minimum of one jab. It means that the injury rate Pfizer reported in their final safety report is an outright LIE, because they excluded this 11% with their little “system” of coding enrollees out (excluding them) once they got INJURED and refused to take another jab, and/or they got injured from the 2nd jab, so Pfizer decided they were no longer “suitable” to be considered as a “participant” for use (or even any mention) in their final “safety” report.

7. That’s one hell of a way to prove your drug is “safe” - just exclude everyone who gets injured by the 1st dose (or even the 2nd does) from the list of “participants” in your final report. And THEN exclude as many as you can who were injured by the 2nd dose, by claiming they didn’t get the 2nd dose “within the predefined window”. That should hide MOST of the injuries from both the 1st AND 2nd doses.

8. The distinction here (the outright fraud) is between the words “enrollee” and “participant”. They “enrolled” (and jabbed) many. And as these enrollees were injured, they were “coded out” and never followed up on. These HUMANS were no longer deemed to be “participants” for use in the final report. NET: Most of the HUMANS who were injured or KILLED by either the 1st or 2nd dose, were “excluded” from the “participant” group in order to hide the fact the drug has maiming and killing MANY people.

9. It looks to be over 11% of the “enrollees” who got injected, were no longer considered to be “participants”. It’s plainly obvious that over 11% of the subjects in phase 3 trials were likely inured, maimed, or even killed. There was no follow up on these “excluded” people, because none of these people were considered suitable for “participation” or to be referred to as “participants”. They were ALREADY “excluded” from Pfizer’s final “safety” report. But this would look really bad, (and cause people to investigate) so Pfizer came up with that tiny % that would become the new “excluded” group for use in their final report - to make it appear as if the excluded group had actually been accounted for. This is what we call a “red herring”.

10. Word salad: Over 10K enrollees who DID get jabbed, were never referred to as “participants” in Pfizer’s final “safety” report.

11. FRAUD is the only correct word to describe what Pfizer has “disclosed” here in this court-ordered document dump which they vehemently fought to prevent the public ever seeing (or tried to keep us from seeing for 75 years.)

12. And I am wondering how anyone who is searching this dataset could MISS the most important data?