LAWYERS, PARALEGALS, AND VOLUNTEERS

May Pfizer FOIA, Hepatitis in Kids, and Shedding

This is a big article. I am going to attempt here to discuss a few of the key issues I am seeing in the May Pfizer FOID dump, hepatitis in kids, and shedding in these gene therapy jabs. In all honesty, reviewing this is challenging but summarizing it in a digestible way is just plain tough. Given that the data has only been available for a couple of days, please understand that this review is not comprehensive and subject to updates. That said, it is too important to ignore. A key report from the FOIA is here:

Full Report 125742 S1 M5 5351 Bnt162 01 Interim3 Report Body
41.6MB ∙ PDF File

Read Here

There was a lot to look at but my focus for this article is going to be on the Phase I/II Interim Clinical Study Report. The document comes in at a hefty 2151 pages and is not an enjoyable read. One of the key things to understand is that the decision to authorize these drugs was largely based on Phase I/II trial data. This is simply because there was not time to do a Phase III. In fact, the date for this “interim” report was March 20, 2021 (after authorization. A version 1 and version 2 had already been sent to the FDA on September 23, 2020 and November 28, 2020 respectively. Also note that the title of the study mentions BNT161-01 but the data also includes BNT161-02 which is appears to be the jab on the market. Also note, that despite the fact that somehow Cominarty was approved it is not, to my knowledge available anywhere.

One of the most striking things about the documents released, and this report, is what appears to be a very obvious attempt by Pfizer to dodge the law. The main part of the document opens up [ironically] with a discussion of ethics. This includes noting that informed consent was obtained by study participants. I cannot confirm that real informed consent was given because I do not yet have the informed consent document they refer to in the report (I have not yet seen it released). That said, for reasons that will follow, I frankly doubt whether true informed consent was given to the study participants.

On page 17, we see the following:

I am following up on this with my scientist friends but think that there are a couple of critical take-aways here. First, note the discussion about the RNA being translated into the cell. That is the point of mRNA, to deliver an RNA sequence into a cell so the cell produces whatever the RNA is describing. That said, here, it is admitted that the BNT161b2 version of the jab is training your body to create the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. The spike protein is part of what causes the damage when you have COVID-19 so why would you want to inject something that teaches your body to create this?

Another noteworthy point is something that it seems like a lot of scientists know but a lot of the rest of us do not. NIH describes transcription as: “… the process of making an RNA copy of a gene’s DNA sequence. This copy, called messenger RNA (mRNA), carries the gene’s protein information encoded in DNA. In humans and other complex organisms, mRNA moves from the cell nucleus to the cell cytoplasm (watery interior), where it is used for synthesizing the encoded protein.” (retrieved on 5/6/2022 from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Transcription). Reverse transcription is the opposite of this where DNA is “created” from an RNA sequence. There are substantial questions about whether the jabs may reverse transcribe their mRNA sequences into cellular DNA in a permanent way but it certainly does not appear impossible.

Two critical considerations, to my view, of this stem from the recent study out of Sweden showing the jabs effect cellular DNA (Jiang, H.; Mei, Y.-F. SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro. Viruses 2021, 13, 2056. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13102056) and an unpublished study that indicates SARS-CoV2 may actually also involve reverse transcription into the host DNA (SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome. Liguo Zhang, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, Rudolf Jaenisch. bioRxiv 2020.12.12.422516; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516). The second study could actually account for long COVID but these two studies together seem to lend legitimacy to the question, do the jabs permanently change your DNA (for my part I think they probably do in many cases).

On page 42 we see that there were 151 deviations from the trial protocols. The document claims that this did not impact things but given that the entire study only included 216 participants and covered a few months it seems like high number to me.

We next turn to page 18 where we see the following:

This is critical and part of the great dodge occurring here. Note that when the study authors break down what any normal person would call a side effect, they do so in three categories: solicited local reactions, solicited systemic reactions, and unsolicited TEAEs. TEAE stands for “Treatment-Emergent Adverse Event” which means that the person who is having the adverse event did not have it prior to receiving the jab. When a person is undergoing a clinical trial they are often asked to keep a journal of anything happening to them and that was done here. The TEAEs were largely pulled from those journals and would not be counted at all unless the people in the study thought to write them down.

Contrast that with the solicited events. The solicited events were events that people were asked about in their treatment journals but were limited to issues around the injection site and flu-like symptoms. That’s it. You do not need to be a scientist to realize that if you do not ask anyone for any reactions but pain in the injection site and flu symptoms you probably won’t get much else. In fact, a strong argument could be made that the people getting the jabs would be more likely to discount any other issues they were having because the message from the doctors and scientists performing the study is that nothing else is likely to have anything to do with the jab.

Despite the fact that Pfizer and the FDA did everything they could do to avoid people reporting TEAEs, they still did and they also found the solicited events. Understand that the results printed were done so in a way that made them very difficult to interpret (this looks intentional). The most relevant totals for the study participants are below and only include the first 28 days after the second shot:

  • Younger people – 60 total study participants for BNT162b2

    • 6 out of 60 people (10%) had TEAEs related to the jabs with 9 adverse events reported (page 105);

    • Of the 60 study participants, there were a whopping total of 135 solicited systemic events with 10% of participants having “severe” events (page 95)

    • 88% of participants had a solicited systemic event so get the jab and get sick

  • Older people – 36 total study participants for BNT162b2

    • 2 out of 36 people (6%) had TEAEs related to the jabs with 9 adverse events reported (page 105);

    • 1 of these events was grade 3 or higher which Fauci’s crew at NIAID define to be “severe”

    • In the 36 older participants there were a mind-blowing 68 solicited systemic events with 11% of participants having “severe” events (page 96)

    • 72% of older participants had a solicited systemic event so again, get the jab and get sick

  • Fauci’s crew at NIAID define a “grade 3” event to mean severe

As if all this is not enough, I would be remiss to end this article without addressing a final elephant in the room in the news. A quick search of kids and hepatitis will reveal two things: first a ton of articles talking about a “mysterious” hepatitis outbreak amongst children and second an equal number of articles that either do not mention the jabs or that include with disclaimers saying this is unrelated to the jabs. It’s great that they include the disclaimer – except it has everything to do with the jabs.

Remember the last Pfizer release that had the 9 pages of “Adverse Events of Special Interest” which basically means expected TEAEs? Listed prominently in those AESIs are various forms of hepatitis. According to a number of these articles some of the kids are testing positive for adenovirus but, guess what, adenoviral pneumonia is also listed as a side effect (which is pneumonia caused by adenovirus). This does not conclusively mean that the hepatitis has anything to do with the adenovirus but, since the CDC officials seem stumped by this, I thought I would mention it.

I do not think there is any question as to the cause of these issues but there is a big question. In August of 2021 the FDA noted that Pfizer had acknowledged the written comments of the FDA and agreed to perform Study C4591022 and entitled it “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.” (https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download). This is important because FDA Study C4591022 is a type of study that the FDA has defined. The study design document is here:

Design And Analysis Of Shedding Studies For Virus Or Bacteria Based Gene Therapy And Oncolytic Products Guidance For Industry
120KB ∙ PDF File

Read Here

Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the document:

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)/Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies (OCTGT) is issuing this guidance to provide you, sponsors of virus or bacteria-based gene therapy products (VBGT products)1 and oncolytic viruses or bacteria (oncolytic products) with recommendations on how to conduct shedding studies during preclinical and clinical development. For purposes of this guidance, the term “shedding” means release of VBGT or oncolytic products from the patient through one or all of the following ways: excreta (feces); secreta (urine, saliva, nasopharyngeal fluids etc.); or through the skin (pustules, sores, wounds). Shedding is distinct from biodistribution because the latter describes how a product is spread within the patient’s body from the site of administration while the former describes how it is excreted or released from the patient’s body. Shedding raises the possibility of transmission of VBGT or oncolytic products from treated to untreated individuals (e.g., close contacts and health care professionals).

Beyond the implicit admission that the jabs are gene therapies, it is difficult to imagine why Pfizer would agree to do a study on shedding if it cannot happen. With that in mind, I take you back to the question about hepatitis. The first question is how many of these kids are jabbed? The second question is, if hepatitis is an AESI and if the jab might shed could any of these kids be seeing side effects if they are in close contacts with people being jabbed?

Ultimately there is a ton of additional info in this data dump, but it continues to confirm what we already knew – these jabs have long been know to be lethal and are only on the market due to outright corruption.