Please help me, I'm going through an intense grieving process and don't know who I can even talk to about it. I found out a few days ago that one of my friends in NYC died from sudden, aggressive cancer a year ago. I was totally out of the loop because of my views on lockdowns etc and haven't been able to grieve collectively because too many people there hated me. My friend posted a photo with the vax card and I ran their batch number here: https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/batchCodeTable.html
It says it had a 3.17% fatality rate. That's what was reported, and I know FOR SURE that no one who knew my friend reported their death.
How would you calculate the actual number of deaths from that batch as opposed to what was reported?
More importantly, is there a support group for people who have lost people this way? It really feels like we can't even talk about it with most people and mourn normally.
I seem to be coming in late to Steve's newsletter. So forgive me for asking, but has the topic of the use of a U.S. Patented segment which is designed to generate the ability to cross the brain blood barrier, that was included in the creation of Pfizer's 'vaccine' been covered yet?
I stumbled upon the information months back, but have not heard anyone really cover it yet.
Outside of a friend in military intel, and all he would say, is I do pay attention.
I've gone through all the documents myself and have arrived at similar results. I'm planning to go through the next batch of documents as well, though not sure when that batch will come about.
Edit: I'm open for discussion and sharing if desired. Reply for arranging means of contact.
Hi Steve. Unfortunately, the FDA did know about the adverse reactions. In a meeting they held in October 2020, they listed possible adverse reactions that included death, myocarditis, etc. See link here, and refer to slide 16:
Great reporting, Steve. One thing I did not notice is mention of Relative Risk Reduction vs Actual Risk Reduction. The 95% was Relative. ACTUAL risk reduction was less than 1%. Peter Doshi of the BMJ has a good takedown on this: 'Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines-we need more details and the raw data'
Thank you for all your work. Here’s my immediate reaction (just critique, please take it for granted that my overall feeling is one of thanks and appreciation).
Animal studies – interested to see that animal studies were performed as I was under the impression that animal studies were never submitted. Was that misinformation? It would be good to clarify as others must be thinking the same.
Point 4 – is the second paragraph about all systemic events or mild to moderate vs the severe systemic events in the first paragraph? Sorry, I haven’t looked at the data but it would be nice for this to be clear. It’s strange that severe fever is higher but overall fever less n vax group vs placebo.
Point 8 – this needs to be compared to placebo to make any sense; I believe the trial wasn’t designed for prevention (despite all the hype on prevention) but even with breakthrough cases in the trial, it could still be claimed that the vax is largely effective at prevention if breakthroughs are small and on a small percentage could even be a different but similar illness and a false positive PCR test. I’m not saying this is my view, but it’s possible to cast doubt on it, so I feel it’s a leap to say they were lying on few cases (I know there were media claims that you wouldn’t get the disease, but I’m not sure Pfizer ever claimed that; in fact, my memory is that Pfizer said a small number will still get it but far fewer).
In point 12, the claim seems to be that the vax suppresses symptoms rather than preventing disease, because vax group test positive but have fewer symptoms than placebo who test positive after symptoms. If vax is completely ineffective at reducing disease but effective at diminishing symptoms, you would expect decrease infections to be reported (ie, I think “completely ineffective” needs to be qualified or to be rewritten to say that you can’t jump from decreased symptoms to decreased infections). This section also seems to be agreeing that asymptomatic transmission is possible, but Yeadon has argued against this.
I used to be a medical writer (publications, not regulatory) in the pharma industry and could offer some help if you like.
I know several people in California who have taken two COVID shots but not the boosters. They have been fine for almost a year. Are they out of danger if they got a placebo or the saline solution? Maybe there's no bad batches since it's a blue state?
I knew Pfizzer had been sued for fraud previously. WHY would I believe them now. And CDC & FDA say you cannot call any non-drug a way to treat or cure. Probably even aspirin?
Absolute madness. This information needs to be pounded into the brains of the Branch Covidians. Sadly, it'll be ignored like the previous mountain of information.
Hi Steve. A small team of us are reviewing document by document for inconsistencies, false claims and other things that jump out. We met in Sonoma. You and I, as well as Lisa, are already connected on Clubhouse.
I want to thank you for helping expose the fraud involved in Covid policy. If you still need help, please contact me. I have a background in statistics, high tech performance engineering, and auditing. As a hobby, I would attend hundreds of lectures done by the local ranked universities to present their research. I love to find holes or mistakes in theories and data.
Please help me, I'm going through an intense grieving process and don't know who I can even talk to about it. I found out a few days ago that one of my friends in NYC died from sudden, aggressive cancer a year ago. I was totally out of the loop because of my views on lockdowns etc and haven't been able to grieve collectively because too many people there hated me. My friend posted a photo with the vax card and I ran their batch number here: https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/batchCodeTable.html
It says it had a 3.17% fatality rate. That's what was reported, and I know FOR SURE that no one who knew my friend reported their death.
How would you calculate the actual number of deaths from that batch as opposed to what was reported?
More importantly, is there a support group for people who have lost people this way? It really feels like we can't even talk about it with most people and mourn normally.
Are there any updates available for any new batches of documents? I thought more came out recently.
I seem to be coming in late to Steve's newsletter. So forgive me for asking, but has the topic of the use of a U.S. Patented segment which is designed to generate the ability to cross the brain blood barrier, that was included in the creation of Pfizer's 'vaccine' been covered yet?
I stumbled upon the information months back, but have not heard anyone really cover it yet.
Outside of a friend in military intel, and all he would say, is I do pay attention.
I've gone through all the documents myself and have arrived at similar results. I'm planning to go through the next batch of documents as well, though not sure when that batch will come about.
Edit: I'm open for discussion and sharing if desired. Reply for arranging means of contact.
Hi Steve. Unfortunately, the FDA did know about the adverse reactions. In a meeting they held in October 2020, they listed possible adverse reactions that included death, myocarditis, etc. See link here, and refer to slide 16:
https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download
Also, the approval letter for Pfizer-BioNTech stated that the vaccine “may be effective” in preventing covid.
What the FDA knew in October before the vaccine was rolled out, mirrors what the new Pfizer docs reveal.
Let’s see what they come up with tomorrow.
Great reporting, Steve. One thing I did not notice is mention of Relative Risk Reduction vs Actual Risk Reduction. The 95% was Relative. ACTUAL risk reduction was less than 1%. Peter Doshi of the BMJ has a good takedown on this: 'Pfizer and Moderna's "95% effective" vaccines-we need more details and the raw data'
warm regards,
Bill Loyd
Here is a reading of the 9 pages fine print / known Adverse Events...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/J7fFiyS3mNxP/
It's nearly an hour but people are suffering from events like these ...
Is this what people who are getting the vaccine should have read to them,
for them to know what the relevant issues are so they could consent?
Merci
Hi Steve, i have translated this in Greek. Anyone interested can find it here: https://zerosum.substack.com/p/-pfizer?s=w
Thank you for all your work. Here’s my immediate reaction (just critique, please take it for granted that my overall feeling is one of thanks and appreciation).
Animal studies – interested to see that animal studies were performed as I was under the impression that animal studies were never submitted. Was that misinformation? It would be good to clarify as others must be thinking the same.
Point 4 – is the second paragraph about all systemic events or mild to moderate vs the severe systemic events in the first paragraph? Sorry, I haven’t looked at the data but it would be nice for this to be clear. It’s strange that severe fever is higher but overall fever less n vax group vs placebo.
Point 8 – this needs to be compared to placebo to make any sense; I believe the trial wasn’t designed for prevention (despite all the hype on prevention) but even with breakthrough cases in the trial, it could still be claimed that the vax is largely effective at prevention if breakthroughs are small and on a small percentage could even be a different but similar illness and a false positive PCR test. I’m not saying this is my view, but it’s possible to cast doubt on it, so I feel it’s a leap to say they were lying on few cases (I know there were media claims that you wouldn’t get the disease, but I’m not sure Pfizer ever claimed that; in fact, my memory is that Pfizer said a small number will still get it but far fewer).
In point 12, the claim seems to be that the vax suppresses symptoms rather than preventing disease, because vax group test positive but have fewer symptoms than placebo who test positive after symptoms. If vax is completely ineffective at reducing disease but effective at diminishing symptoms, you would expect decrease infections to be reported (ie, I think “completely ineffective” needs to be qualified or to be rewritten to say that you can’t jump from decreased symptoms to decreased infections). This section also seems to be agreeing that asymptomatic transmission is possible, but Yeadon has argued against this.
I used to be a medical writer (publications, not regulatory) in the pharma industry and could offer some help if you like.
Hi, can I be of help in reviewing these documents?
I know several people in California who have taken two COVID shots but not the boosters. They have been fine for almost a year. Are they out of danger if they got a placebo or the saline solution? Maybe there's no bad batches since it's a blue state?
I knew Pfizzer had been sued for fraud previously. WHY would I believe them now. And CDC & FDA say you cannot call any non-drug a way to treat or cure. Probably even aspirin?
Absolute madness. This information needs to be pounded into the brains of the Branch Covidians. Sadly, it'll be ignored like the previous mountain of information.
Hi Steve. A small team of us are reviewing document by document for inconsistencies, false claims and other things that jump out. We met in Sonoma. You and I, as well as Lisa, are already connected on Clubhouse.
I want to thank you for helping expose the fraud involved in Covid policy. If you still need help, please contact me. I have a background in statistics, high tech performance engineering, and auditing. As a hobby, I would attend hundreds of lectures done by the local ranked universities to present their research. I love to find holes or mistakes in theories and data.