There’s No Real Evidence That Pfizer Passed Clinical Trial!

The Pfizer jab came out of nowhere. ‘Like a spark in the dark’. In times when there was a real existing answer – ivermectin treatment, something inside the rotten government and Big Pharma was seriously plotting – resulting in forcing the Pfizer jab to the entire world population – no excuses!

Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here:

Disguised as a cure – the poison of Big Pharma is meant to do the exact opposite while making rich people even richer!

Also, we’ve lived to testify that the vaccine isn’t working!

The vaccine failed to prove itself by the standard clinical endpoint of ‘all-cause mortality.’

A report was published bybthe FDA on November 8 which LITERALLY echoed through the entire internet community. The report included updated clinical-trial results of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine. The well-publicized trial included approximately 44,000 people over the age of 16, equally divided into two groups receiving either vaccine or placebo.

On page 23 of this November 8 FDA report, we find that over the course of the trial (through March 31, 2021) there were a total of 38 deaths among participants: 21 in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group. Because the number of deaths in the vaccinated group was not significantly less than in the placebo group, the vaccine failed to prove itself by the standard of all-cause mortality.

Here’s the catch: After this intel circulated out – there’s really no way to prove that this vaccine has been proven by a clinical trial to save lives, yet people are being pressured to receive it under threat of court-martial, lost employment, withheld medical treatment, exclusion from common life, and social stigma.

Here’s an interesting point of view and comparison with a paper published back in 1991. The National Academy of Sciences published a volume of conference proceedings entitled, Modern Methods of Clinical Investigation: Medical Innovation at the Crossroads: Volume 1.
“In this volume, renowned anesthetist John P. Bunker contributed a paper entitled “The Selection of Endpoints in Evaluative Research,” in which he explained the evaluative advantage of all-cause mortality with many object lessons from the annals of medical history. He concluded the paper with this warning: “… when dealing with mortality as an endpoint of treatment, all-cause mortality is ignored at the peril of the investigators and the public.”

Bunker’s paper is highly readable — only six pages long — and well cited. Those who which to read it for themselves should download it, because it has now been “COVID-tagged.” (John Bunker is credited with founding the anesthesiology department of Stanford University School of Medicine.)

At first exposure, most people are surprised to learn that all-cause mortality is the standard endpoint for evaluating (intended) life-saving medical treatment. Why should we care about mortality from “all causes” when we are evaluating Treatment X for its mitigation of Disease X?

Let us suppose a person “Joe” received Treatment X, and it caused minor clots throughout his body. While Joe was driving, a clot broke loose and lodged in his brain, causing him to stroke and perish in the ensuing car accident. It would be nearly impossible to trace the true root cause of Joe’s death back to Treatment X.

But if Joe were part of a large clinical trial, these sorts of obscure effects of Treatment X would add up among the trial participants and manifest themselves in deaths due to “all causes,” and these would have to be considered relative to any lives saved due to the mitigating effect of Treatment X on Disease X. In short, all-cause mortality is the standard clinical endpoint, precisely because unanticipated effects of treatment are notoriously difficult to discern.

But wasn’t the vaccine proven successful, because vaccine recipients were far less likely to contract COVID or to get a serious case of it? The prevention or mitigation of COVID is indeed a clinical endpoint with some merit, especially in the early stages of treatment development. A treatment that did not meet this endpoint in early trials could be dismissed from further consideration. However, as a final assessment, this clinical endpoint is inadequate, because it doesn’t properly account for obscure adverse effects which may offset the observed benefits.”

Here’s an original segment of the paper:

“Proponents of new therapies understandably would prefer to judge their results on the basis of the specific condition the treatment is intended to relieve. An investigator might well ask why death from a completely unrelated cause should count against the proposed therapy. But it is not always clear that the “unrelated” cause is really unrelated. The latest example to come to my attention is a report from Scotland, in the British Medical Journal, in which the authors report an observational study correlating blood cholesterol levels with cardiac deaths and other endpoints, cancer in particular. The investigators found the predicted association between cholesterol level and cardiac deaths, but the reduction in cardiac deaths associated with lower cholesterol was offset by an equal increase in cancer deaths.”

Since the experiment obviously failed to bring results – and save lives, the real question is – why is Pfizer still being injected in humans, and even human children and youngster to this day?!

Life Site NewsNCBIStanford MedicineAlex Berenson

Ava Garcia

A small town girl, dreaming big, expecting to change the world with presenting the truthful events of the world today. Law degree with a master in criminology, and a devoted journalist for over 7 years, and counting. "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

For continue reading on the site please disable the Ad-block