EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


The Pfizer trial data is proving contentious.

Frankly I would like to feature fewer Covid stories, but some strike me as important. This is one such, as it perfectly illustrates the apparent dishonesty underlying the vaccines drive being so assiduously pushed by our authorities.

This is not data that has arisen post vaccination roll-out - this is data from the original Pfizer safety and efficacy trials. It should have been identified and investigated before the vaccine roll-out ever started.

It joins a long list of problems with the Covid pandemic story (the test that doesn't work, the alternative treatments that were suppressed, the unproven "asymptomatic infection" narrative, the bare-faced lie so beloved of our "journalists" that a positive test unsupported by additional clinical evidence equates to a "case", the preposterous notion that a safe vaccine can be designed produced and safety tested within nine months or so, the blatant skewing of the statistics to rebrand all manner of death and illness as "covid" on the basis of a positive test within the previous 28 days whilst absolutely ignoring any link between a vaccination and a death or illness within the 28 days following, and the insane drive to vaccinate all ages including our children who are at no significant risk from the illness).

All of these demonstrate either incompetence or bad faith - taken together it's now so hard to make the case for incompetence that court action is being taken internationally.


The Pfizer trial report (identified by the Daily Sceptic article) was funded by - Pfizer.

To read the report you wouldn't necessarily pick up the salient points as there are many appendices not available to the casual browser, but the section headed Adverse Events comes close to telling the story:

"... resulted in imbalances between the BNT162b2 group and the placebo group with respect to adverse events (30% vs. 14%), related adverse events (24% vs. 6%), and severe adverse events (1.2% vs. 0.7%)"

"Few participants had serious adverse events or adverse events that led to trial withdrawal" (but by implication, some did)

The trial was split into consecutive periods

- during the initial "blinded, placebo-controlled" period "15 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 14 in the placebo group died" 

-  in the subsequent period after some in the placebo group had accepted the vaccine "3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators" so that's all right then.

I make that a total of 20 of the vaccinated died against 14 of the unvaccinated, but it's not obvious how many of the placebo group subsequently opted to accept the vaccination. But even if we discount the 2 who opted into the vaccine and died, we still have 18 dead and vaccinated against 14 dead but unvaccinated.  

In fact this paper omits relevant information and reports some issues as percentages and some as actual numbers, so it's confusing and difficult to get to the bottom of the figures as presented. For a critical scientific paper this sets a pretty miserable standard.

It is nevertheless pretty clear that it would be perverse indeed to conclude from these figures that the vaccine was shown to reduce risk of death.