The Pfizer Papers: Emergency Use Authorisation of the Injectable “Product”
By T.J. Coles
This is part five in our series. Read parts 1 to 4 here, here, here, and here.
Ever since a judge in Texas ordered the monthly release of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Pfizer-BioNTech documents concerning the so-called vaccine (BNT162b2), explosive revelations that should have made headline news have been predictably ignored by legacy media.
* Hundreds of potentially serious side-effects
* More children having severe adverse injection reactions than needing oxygen for COVID
* Increased myocarditis in young people
* Causes of death in trial participants not investigated
* An increase in spontaneous abortions and miscarriages in age groups not seriously at risk of dying from/with COVID (the words of the study deny this but the numbers support it)
* Women and girls getting irregular periods
F.D.A. BRIEF: “SPONSORED BY PFIZER”
Last month, Jacqueline O’Shaughnessy, Acting Chief Scientist of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wrote to Pfizer’s Regulatory Affairs Manager for Vaccines, Gosia Mineo. O’Shaughnessy reminded Mineo that, as early as March 2020, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services “declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Notice that it says “products,” as if they knew that a real vaccine could not be developed so fast.
In November 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech sponsored an FDA briefing paper on their new product.
The FDA repeated Pfizer’s fudged data. As TOTT News has previously documented, the trial phases were mixed up, the placebo to vaccine ratio was at times 4:1 instead of the normal 1:1, and some of the participants unblinded.
Note the parsed phrases of the conclusion:
“based on the totality of scientific evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older…”
I thought that science was based on evidence, not “belief.” I thought that we were told that the injection was effective, not that it “may be effective.”
The O’Shaughnessy letter from July this year re-authorising the injection acknowledges that when the Pfizer-BioNTech product was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020, the FDA had “removed reference to the number of doses per vial after dilution.”
Even US mainstream corporate legacy media and specialist health sites reported at the time that the FDA’s decision “cleared the way for use of extra doses found in Pfizer’s nominally five-dose vials of COVID vaccine.” The elderly were the first to be injected with the “overfilled containers.”
In June this year, the FDA authorized the injection for 6 month to four-year-olds, despite US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data suggesting that fewer than 200 infants aged one to four have died of/with COVID in the US to date.
The letter dated July this year re-authorises the injection and repeats the statement: “it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19.”
Again, we were told that the injection was over 90 percent “safe and effective,” not that vaccinologists “reasonably believed” that it “may be effective.”
The re-authorisation occurred last month with little or no media coverage.
In February, the FDA requested that Pfizer-BioNTech initiate a “rolling submission” for EUA. Pfizer told the public in its press release that by that date, one million American children aged four and under had tested positive for COVID.
What they didn’t mention is that of those, fewer than 200 had died (see above).
Pfizer also claimed that, by January this year, “children under 4 accounted for 3.2% of the total hospitalizations due to COVID-19.”
What they didn’t mention was that more children were having severe adverse injection reactions globally than those who needed ventilation for COVID.
Pfizer also failed to note that, due to reliance on flawed algorithms, the CDC’s COVID-19 Data Tracker had overestimated COVID-related child deaths by over 400.
“SUDDEN ADULT DEATH SYNDROME”?
Indicative of the lack of media interest in “sudden adult death syndrome,” also known as “sudden arrhythmic” or “arrhythmia death syndrome” (SADS), the New York Times archive contains a total of three references for the three variations of the phrase from articles published between January 1980 and August this year.
Indeed, a journal dedicated to cardiology—presumably talking about UK cases—found just 453 SADS deaths between 1994 and 2003.
One high-profile case was that of footballer Cormac McAnallen, who died of SADS in 2004.
A recent freedom of information request filed for England and Wales revealed 302 SADS-related deaths between 2016 and ‘20.
In June 2021, Joan Bakewell asked her fellow peers in the British House of Lords:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they make of avoidable deaths from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome in the United Kingdom each year and what steps they are taking to introduce screening to reduce such deaths, in particular for those involved in sporting activities.”
Death in athletes is more noticeable than in the general population, because ordinary people die in obscurity, whereas sportspeople frequently perish in full public view often on the grounds.
Joanna Penn replied with a claim that in 2019 alone (i.e., before the injection) there were 1,511 SADS deaths in the UK. Why did she say this and what were her sources? The claim is a massive, unfounded exaggeration perhaps designed to make SADS look quite normal to disguise the effects of what actually might be caused by the injection.
This coincides with sudden, increased media interest in SADS.
We have focused on the July re-authorisation, because this month’s release of the Pfizer papers seems to reveal little of interest and appears to be mostly uninterpreted patient data.
We can expect the next few months’ data dumps to be equally uninteresting.
It is possible that once researchers have become bored looking at the documents, Pfizer/the FDA will release the kind of bombshells that they have been publishing to date.
We are also seeing the futility of the injection for preventing infection and spread.
Initially, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that he had not been injected because other people were a priority; as if there weren’t enough doses for everyone in the West.
When the company realised that this was terrible PR, Bourla got the jab, or at least said he did. This is the same man who initially told us that the injection was nearly 100 percent safe and effective.
On 15th August, Bourla issued the following statement:
“I would like to inform the public that I have tested positive for COVID-19. I am grateful to have received four doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and I am feeling well while experiencing very mild symptoms. I have started a course of PAXLOVID™ (nirmatrelvir [PF-07321332] tablets and ritonavir tablets), I am isolating in place as well as following all public health precautions.”
As people were being demonised for taking the anti-parasitic Ivermectin for COVID, media lied and gave the impression that Ivermectin is exclusively a horse de-wormer.
Now, Bourla says that he is taking the unlicensed Paxlovid, which is only approved by the FDA under EUA.
Many argue that Paxlovid has the same protease inhibitor effects as Ivermectin and that Pfizer merely stole the design of the off-patent anti-parasitic and marketed their expensive own brand: or “Pfizermectin,” as some have dubbed the drug.
Dr. T.J. Coles is the author of several books, including — The War on You.
Check out T.J’s Amazon page by clicking here.
View more published content from Coles here.
For more hard-hitting news, follow us:
Facebook — Facebook.com/TOTTNews
YouTube — YouTube.com/TOTTNews
Instagram — Instagram.com/TOTTNews
Twitter — Twitter.com/EthanTOTT
4 thoughts on “The Pfizer Papers: Emergency Use Authorisation of the Injectable “Product””
The genocide of humans is continuing. We must say NO to this insane manipulation.