Pfizer Unable to Meet Safety and Efficacy Standards

I wasn't aware of this, but apparently Pfizer had to disclose risks to their stakeholders.  This Lawyer Lisa video explains that Pfizer, after 2 years, is afraid that they will not be able to meet safety and efficacy requirements to sell their vaccine without an EUA.

Remember, they reduced efficacy requirements to make the vaccine viable already.  That is really bad.  If the risk disclosure is real, then they are admitting that their product is a known risk.  Lisa believes that its proof of fraud and Pfizer is therefore liable.

Pretty sad, if true, that you don't get the risks when you take it, but stakeholders get them because of investments.  Lisa mentions that in the video.

What !!!!

What do they mean they can't meet requirements ?

What about all those billion$ ????


☠️🔥☠️

a reply to: Wisenox

Yep,

I would advise watching the video for details:

a reply to: Wisenox

They're already selling it without an EUA, it's already approved.

a reply to: Wisenox

I think I found where she got this info from.

Pfizer SEC disclosure

PDF page 54. Document page 51 near the bottom. They state;

The outcome of R&D activities, including, the ability to meet anticipated pre-clinical or clinical endpoints, commencement and/or completion dates for our pre-clinical or clinical trials, regulatory submission dates, and/or regulatory approval and/or launch dates; the possibility of unfavorable preclinical and clinical trial results, including the possibility of unfavorable new pre-clinical or clinical data and further analyses of existing pre-clinical
or clinical data; the risk that pre-clinical and clinical trial data are subject to differing interpretations and assessments, including during the peer review/publication process, in the scientific community generally, and by regulatory authorities; and whether and when additional data from our pipeline programs will be published in scientific journal publications, and if so, when and with what modifications and interpretations;

• our ability to successfully address comments received from regulatory authorities such as the FDA or the EMA, or obtain approval for new products and indications from regulators on a timely basis or at all; regulatory decisions impacting labeling, including the scope of indicated patient populations, product dosage, manufacturing processes, safety and/or other matters, including decisions relating to emerging developments regarding potential product impurities;
the impact of recommendations by technical or advisory committees; and the timing of pricing approvals and product launches;

• claims and concerns that may arise regarding the safety or efficacy of in-line products and product candidates, including claims and concerns that may arise from the outcome of post-approval clinical trials, which could impact marketing approval, product labeling, and/or availability or commercial potential, including uncertainties regarding the commercial or other impact of the results of the Xeljanz ORAL Surveillance (A3921133) study or actions by regulatory authorities based on analysis of ORAL Surveillance or other data, including on other JAK inhibitors in our portfolio;

• the success and impact of external business development activities, including the ability to identify and execute on potential business development opportunities; the ability to satisfy the conditions to closing of announced transactions in the anticipated time frame or at all; the ability to realize the anticipated benefits of any such

No opinion granted in this case, just wanted the actual information out there for you all.

a reply to: litterbaux

If that's where she got it from she's a moron since it doesn't say at all what she said.

a reply to: Wisenox

They never do, still they get to sell their crap and pay out when they kill the people, this killer companies are always fighting law sues in courts and most of the time the settler outside the courts.

Money talks BS walks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't exactly know where she got it from but I parsed the document for her key words and that area of the document kept coming up.

These people really need to back up their videos with proof so we aren't all trying to guess wtf their talking about.

a reply to: litterbaux

Well all that is saying is there is always a risk of harm with new products, and investors need to be aware.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Wisenox

Yep,

I would advise watching the video for details:

He breaks this down pretty well. The places they were conducting trials has very suspect data. Trends form perfect lines like for recruitment, and there is one doctor who supposed did 1 million pages of paperwork in a few weeks.

It looks like they just made up a bunch of BS trials data.

a reply to: litterbaux

It seems that they know Paxlovid is ineffective:

In April 2022, Pfizer shared top-line results from the Phase 2/3 EPIC-PEP (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in Post-Exposure Prophylaxis) study in adults living in the same household as someone with a confirmed COVID-19 infection observing a risk reduction of 32% and 37% in adults who received Paxlovid for five and ten days, respectively, to prevent infection. These results, however, were not statistically significant and, as such, the primary endpoint of reducing the risk of confirmed and symptomatic COVID-19 infection in adults who had been exposed to the virus through a household contact
was not met. For additional information on Paxlovid, please see the COVID-19 Pandemic section of this MD&A.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Well if they made it up they sure didn't make up something that makes them look bad. So which is it? Is the information real, damning, and they look bad; or is it made up so they look great?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Well if they made it up they sure didn't make up something that makes them look bad. So which is it? Is the information real, damning, and they look bad; or is it made up so they look great?

You're definitely their cheerleader. Do you think the trend is towards more people getting vaccinated or more people avoiding it now? I think you know the answer to that question.

They have plenty of bad data but their "good" data looks suspect as hell.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: litterbaux

Well all that is saying is there is always a risk of harm with new products, and investors need to be aware.

It's called CYA, since the investors can actually sue Pfizer if they don't disclose at least one tidbit saying there could be an issue with the safety. Unlike the people who were mandated to take it--they can't sue for the dangerous experimental shots that do nothing to stop the virus in anyway and actually make it 1000x worse because it destroys your innate immunity.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Try manufacturing billions of anything without bad batches, contamination and undetected defects.

Chances of severe adverse vaccine reactions might be minimal but a chance none the less.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That disclosure isn't for covid vaccines, its standard for every product.

a reply to: Wisenox

Given their guilty pleas in 2004 and 2009 to criminal medical fraud in federal court, Pfizer has been operating a continuing criminal enterprise for at least that long.

Were they in on the Plandemic? Hell yes they were.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Why, because people like you lie non stop? When it suits your agenda everyone with a cough should be counted as having covid despite multiple negative tests, and then when it doesn't suit your agenda even a positive test with symptoms shouldn't be counted because they are so likely to give a false positive.

You are one of the biggest hypocrites on ATS because all you care about is finding something that fits your agenda.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
What's their agenda?