FDA Knew and Hid Fact There'd Be Many COVID Cases in Fully "Vaccinated"

originally posted by: carewemust
Why does Joe Biden keep saying vaccines and boosters will "defeat this virus", like he said repeatedly today?

Source: www.voanews.com...

Does he still believe what he said on live TV last month, that those who are vaccinated cannot contract Covid-19?

Same guy who just completely botched Afghanistan withdrawal...wants 100% "vaccination".

"Never Underestimate Joe's Ability To F**k Things Up." -- Barack Obama

a reply to: Poofmander
The only point I have ever made was that people should always have the right to refuse.
If taking the vaccine sounds like a good choice to you then have at it but please do not tell people that they cannot choose to depend on their own immune system. The many reasons people use to explain their choice to pass on the vaccine is ultimately irrelevant, then can just say, no thanks without any justification.

a reply to: Poofmander

Seriously?

TLDR

Hot rumor about Pfizer Vax getting full FDA certified by Monday 🙂

a reply to: xuenchen

I heard it on the tele news tonight!

Cheers
Ektar

originally posted by: Poofmander
a reply to: face23785

Well this happens after you get more data, yes there was enough data to show it had some effectiveness, and now there's a bigger data pool, more accurately comprised of a myriad of individuals not in the initial trials.

This is the honesty that we need, good science has results and then they test again and get other results. Sure wer are all being experimented on, but isn't that this whole country an experiment? If they didn't change the effectiveness rate they're lying and you would be upset, if they do, obviously you're upset.

There's no winning with you guys.

You obviously haven't been following the thread. They knew it wasn't as effective as they claimed when they made the claim. The evidence is in the report they submitted to the FDA to get the emergency use authorization. There was a gigantic uncertainty in their trials. They pretended it didn't matter. That's not honesty. That's not good science. You might want to start reading the thread from the beginning.

a reply to: underpass61

Whut ewe dunt Reed?

a reply to: face23785

Well you can't say you really know something until you test it, they can postulate and theorize that it will be less effective, but KNOW that's in the eye of the beholder.

But yeah sorry I enjoy talking out my anus every now and again, and to read all of these threads sometimes would cause my brain to leak out my nose onto my keyboard or phone...so I get the gist and then troll y'all, cuz guess what it's fun, I'll see you guys in the FEMA death camps when they take us all for being members of this forum.

Remember everyone deny ignorance!

I came across this chapter of Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi's new book 'Covid Unmasked'.

The excerpt (below) is from the one chapter translated from German to English...and it directly references this particular study, as well as the fact that it should never have been used to grant EUA or to legitimize Pfizer's claim of 95% protection.

ABOUT Dr. Bhakdi:

-Post-doctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg

-Post-doctoral researcher at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen

-Member Institute of Medical Microbiology at Giessen University

-Chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz.

-Published over three hundred articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology

-Received numerous awards including the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From 'Covid Unmasked' (English translation):

In fact, among the 40,000+ test subjects of the Pfizer study, just 170 COVID-19 “cases” occurred (about 0.4%).
Of these, 8 occurred among the vaccinated (1x severe), whereas 162 in the unvaccinated control group.
The 8 cases in the first group equal 5% of the 162 in the second – therefore, 95% protection!?

Considering this small number of cases overall, the evidence must be described as plainly ridiculous from a scientific point of view.

Moreover: how did this study define a “COVID-19 case” in the first place?
Aha: symptoms like cough, cold, hoarseness and a positive RTPCR test, which is extremely unreliable, as everyone knows by now.

So, what we have here is a vaccination that might possibly prevent cough, cold, hoarseness in 0.7% of the vaccinated. For this breathtaking achievement, hundreds of vaccinated people had to accept severe side effects, some of which led to hospitalization.

The situation is no better for the other vaccine manufacturers.

Accordingly, Professor Peter Doshi, writing in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine, complains: “None of the studies currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in severe outcomes in terms of hospitalization, admission to intensive care units, or death.«

How great is the benefit of vaccination, especially for the group most at risk from the infection?
No one knows. Thereby, the justification for the conditional approval is the demonstrated prevention of serious or even deadly events.

The conditional approvals for all gene-based vaccines were thus made without any basis whatsoever.

PDF: www.goldegg-verlag.com...
(emphasis mine)

NOTES:
The entire chapter from the enclosed PDF link is worth reading.

Those interested in hearing more from Dr. Bhakdi may wish to view this in-depth and fascinating interview:
noqreport.com...

Advice to all as the assault from evil ramps up.

Keep these two websites booked on your phone.

Current # of Covid-19 Deaths: www.worldometers.info... (See the graphs)

Current # of Covid-19 Hospitalizations: gis.cdc.gov...

As you can see, both Deaths and Hospitalizations are on the decline. This comes in handy when you run into someone who doesn't (or doesn't know how to) think for him/her self.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
The vaccine was always about the severity of the illness if you caught vivid.

Reducing how I'll and for how long. This helps reduce the spread if the catchee has a reduced active virus period.

So it's working as intended.

Very similar to flu shots, although almost double the effectiveness of the flu shot.

Almost double?

That is so effective.

I totally believe that too.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

The “vaccines” have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt just how brainwashed, afraid, illogical and just plain stupid the vast majority of people are.

You couldn't be more right.

I was so shocked yesterday to notice how deep the brainwashing is. There's this weird circular reasoning - because governments are trustworthy, and individuals simply CAN'T research anything themselves in a reliable way, we MUST trust the mainstream media, and all this means they have no reason to lie to us. Because governments cured polio with vaccines, too, and some other disease that was rampant in the 1980s was completely eradicated by vaccines, and trust the science!

Oh, 'alternative media' - some crappy news source that LIES TO YOU, and has no resources and has not done any research - ..

Try to convince some 'healthworker' that believes anyone that doubts the official story is paranoid and should be in some kind of medications, and is shocked if anyone doesn't take or want to take the vaccine..

I can't understand how anyone can fall SO deep into this brainwashing that they abandon ALL critical thinking, ALL analysis of the situation.. you'd think intelligent people, even if they believe what the mainstream media is telling them, would at least leave a tiny door ajar for other possibilities. Just a very small door, very slightly ajar.

But nope. There is no door, or a jar. Nothing. Just blind belief, and you're a fool if you think you can research better than the experts, TRUST THE SCIENCE!

I guess I should not point out that science is not 100% correct about everything, there are conflicts and disagreements between scientists about almost every major thing, science has been wrong about thousands of things in history and made mistakes it hasn't been able to correct, and that science is actually a METHOD that doesn't require trust or belief, because it seeks to TEST things empirically and prove things, so it doesn't require trust.

Nothing about the vaccines have been proven, except they're dangerous, untested and cause complications.

It's useless to try to debate these people, but it's scary how they seem intelligent on one hand, and then suddenly start spewing a programmed monologue like some bad movie villain that's controlled remotely. It's like someone is feeding these lines from a teleprompter or something. Is this what vaccine does, turns people into mindless zombies that trust mainstream media blindly?

I have known people's ignorance and stupidity for decades now, and from time to time, it has exceeded my most extreme expectations. I thought I was prepared for it, but you re SO right - this vaccine stuff has revealed their stupidity, ignorance and lack of independent, critical thinking to the extent that even I am still utterly SHOCKED by it.

This has been the most shocking year of my life so far.. can't wait what happens next.

I wonder why I am immune and not as brainwashed as everyone else, I haven't done anything special. Perhaps it's that I haven't watched TV 'programming' for decades (I don't like to be programmed). I own multiple televisions, but they're all for computer purposes, mostly older computers and consoles (CRT TVs for the win!). I have and do watch TV shows, but they're pretty much from DVDs and such, so there are no ads or propaganda added to them.

I don't understand why anyone would RATHER choose to watch a TV show episode that just happens to come from the TV with announcements, ads, interruptions, edited, cut versions, altered stuff, etc. that comes at a specific time, that if you miss, you miss the show completely, etc., when they can watch any episode they want, or any episodes in any order they want, without any of that stuff, and they can pause it any time they want for as long as they want, and resume whenever they want, etc..

Why would anyone choose inconvenience that someone else imposes upon you with ads etc., when can watch the same thing ad-free at your own convenience? I never understood that, but then, I started doing that stuff long before masses even realized you can actually watch things like that on a computer. Then again, I started using banks also via computers long before masses had even heard of 'the internet'. You could ACTUALLY call a bank's computer on a modem, and do your business that way - purely text-based, it was a 'cool' thing to do, and sort of heavenly convenience at a time when people were used to walking into a bank and waiting in line.

Why didn't masses do the modem alternative? Why didn't masses watch movies and TV shows on their computer as early as I did? I never understood how so many people can be so ignorant of the basics of computers or even politics.

I still don't understand how people can be so naive, ignorant, trusting of the evil corporations and governments, and believe blindly everything mainstream media tells them, either, so I guess I just can't understand the people of this planet.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

The only point I have ever made was that people should always have the right to refuse.

Rights are not about 'should's. Someone can neither give you a right, nor take it away, so 'should' makes no sense.

'Should' makes sense when we consider whether some crosswalk should have a certain traffic signal or maybe even traffic lights. We can ponder the pros and cons, take into account the costs and how other things might suffer if we use some of the budget for this thing, and so on. THAT would be a matter of 'shoulds' and 'should nots'.

Rights are not such a thing, you can't debate what 'should' and 'shouldn't' be a right.

Law is basically very simple; it's the mountain of precedent cases through human history that most people can agree upon; you are not allowed to murder, steal, injure or damage anyone else or their property. You can't even touch someone or use anything they own without their consent (lawfully, that is). The law has very recently started accepting that 'fraud' is also unlawful, although previously it was more like 'fool and her money are soon parted' (I bring equality to the old sayings). People were responsible that they weren't fooled, scammed, etc., but nowadays that is also unlawful thing to do.

That is about it. That is all that law is. Basically law means, you can't trample on someone else's rights, and this ensures everyone can use their human rights at all times. Notice I didn't say 'have', because we already have unalienable rights by birthright, if you will.

(LEGAL SYSTEM is a different thing, it has zillions of 'acts', 'codes' and 'statutes', but those are not law - they can have the POWER of law if you have consented to being governed by them, though, so be careful when signing 'applications', 'registrations' or other forms)

Now, we come to the 'you can't touch my body without my consent' part. No one can inject you with anything without your consent because no one has the right to do ANYTHING to your body without your consent - that is, if law hasn't been broken. If you commit a crime, this changes drastically, and now you can be jailed (to protect other people's usage of their rights).

It's 100% unlawful to inject anything into anyone's body without their consent.

However, there is a way around this, sadly. People have too many rights to list, including the right for unlimited contracting. Yes, you can consent to not being able to USE your rights. They're still there, but now you rendered them unusable. In this kind of situation, someone CAN inject you without or against your consent; you gave them consent to being able to do so.

It's a bit complicated, but if you consent to being governed by legal system (instead of law), you can't use all your rights at all times. Government can suspend your right-usage to jab you, so we do live in dangerous times.

So 'should have a right' doesn't really compute. You ALWAYS HAVE that right to reject anything, but can you USE that right, do you have ACCESS to it when you need it? That's a different question.

Then the thugs that don't know or care about any of this that will force things upon you (unlawfully or not), is a different matter altogether (and happens, because if the victim doesn't know what rights are or any of this, why should the thugs care?).