Pfizer Document Released Under FOI Shows 1 in 34 Adverse Events Were Deaths

[Nick]

This is where you are wrong, and clearly think you know more than you actually do.  In Windows, when you copy a document, it updates the 'created' and 'modified' dates.  You can verify that by downloading it.

Wrong again.

When you download a document you change the file properties, not the document properties.

OH!! Looks like I do actually know what I'm talking about then! You can even open the PDF with notepad and look at the META data inside, data that only gets changed when the PDF it's self is modified.
So again, seeing as the DT stamp down the side of the document is linked to the DT stamp at the time of creation then the META data should match, and it doesn't therefore the document has been altered.

To conclude: the people that changed the document did so as to show false information, the only conclusion can be that the original data wasn't bad at all otherwise there would have been no need to doctor it in the first place. And now yours and Sheep-dip's conspiracy lies on the floor in tatters.

[Scott777]

And as I said in my first post on the subject can you show the legitimate source of the document? Where Pfizer issued the document and who to?

Pfizer issued the document to Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.  What is a "legitimate source"?  Please define that.

The EMA has stated that the document BNT162b2 had been stolen from servers and then released in its CHANGED form in order to perpetuate false news. If you'd read the link Cromwell posted you'd have seen it.

Then show me the link to the EMA where it says that.  As I said to Cromwell, who is Info-Security Magazine?  What makes them more legitimate than Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency?  And why should I read it?

You're the one who started this thread, it's up to you to show that it's genuine.

How?  The only way to prove it, would be for you to request it from Pfizer.

I now know it is fake:

The document is dated April 2021 but was edited 12 Nov 2021, strangely enough the same month it was uploaded to your dodgy website. Any thoughts on that Scott??

This is where you are wrong, and clearly think you know more than you actually do.  In Windows, when you copy a document, it updates the 'created' and 'modified' dates.  You can verify that by downloading it.  It will change the dates to today.

[Sheepy]

Don't tell lies they are stealing others work.
Scientists discover 'smoking gun' link between AstraZeneca vaccine and lethal blood clots (msn.com)
Plus you have already jabbed millions with spike protein, so we know it is a ticking time bomb. 

[Nick]

Your argument is circular.  You was attempting to explain why you think it's not legitimate, and has been altered.  Your reason was: it doesn't have a version control page, or a version (but not all official FOI documents have such things).  And it has no date (but it does have a date, on the left edge).  Then you resort to just making a statement of fact, that it's not anything and was altered.  Then you say it's fake, but still haven't explained how you know.  Will you be going round and round in circles?  Or can you explain how you know?

And as I said in my first post on the subject can you show the legitimate source of the document? Where Pfizer issued the document and who to?

The EMA has stated that the document BNT162b2 had been stolen from servers and then released in its CHANGED form in order to perpetuate false news. If you'd read the link Cromwell posted you'd have seen it.

You're the one who started this thread, it's up to you to show that it's genuine.


EDIT


I now know it is fake:

The document is dated April 2021 but was edited 12 Nov 2021, strangely enough the same month it was uploaded to your dodgy website. Any thoughts on that Scott??

[Scott777]

It isn't anything because it has been changed.


And like I said, the document you linked wasn't released, it was leaked. Whether it is official is entirely down to what is written in it and how the document was acquired.
Yours isn't official because it was leaked and subsequently altered. But you carry on with your line of enquiry rather than acknowledging that the document is fake.

Your argument is circular.  You was attempting to explain why you think it's not legitimate, and has been altered.  Your reason was: it doesn't have a version control page, or a version (but not all official FOI documents have such things).  And it has no date (but it does have a date, on the left edge).  Then you resort to just making a statement of fact, that it's not anything and was altered.  Then you say it's fake, but still haven't explained how you know.  Will you be going round and round in circles?  Or can you explain how you know?

[Nick]

but it is a report.

It isn't anything because it has been changed.

And you didn't say what an 'official document' is (is a document confidentially released under FOI an official document?)

And like I said, the document you linked wasn't released, it was leaked. Whether it is official is entirely down to what is written in it and how the document was acquired.
Yours isn't official because it was leaked and subsequently altered. But you carry on with your line of enquiry rather than acknowledging that the document is fake.

[Scott777]

This is what the front page of an official Pfizer document looks like. Nothing like the one you linked to.

It wasn't released by FOI, it is apparently a leaked and then doctored document, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

You didn't answer a single one of my questions, and I think you are confused.  You seem to be comparing it to a clinical trial, but it is a report.  And you didn't say what an 'official document' is (is a document confidentially released under FOI an official document?).

[Sheepy]

They've even named it now.
Post Pandemic Stress Disorder - 300,000 extra problem heart cases.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/post-pandemic-stress-disorder-heart-conditions-covid-london-physicians-b969436.html

Perhaps Nick could run his truth detector over the Evening Standard.

Well of course it could be related to stress, but as we were quicker with the science and the explanation of spike protein, I guess they will have to believe it. Funny old world, isn't it?

[Nick]

So, Nick, what is an 'official' document?  [highlight]Do all documents released under FOI require a version control page?[/highlight]

You mention an author.  Is Pfizer not an author?

As for Scam-detector, what is a "clean bill of health"?  Are you saying they are safe from viruses and for children?  Is that it?

This is what the front page of an official Pfizer document looks like. Nothing like the one you linked to.

It wasn't released by FOI, it is apparently a leaked and then doctored document, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[Sheepy]

So, Nick, what is an 'official' document?  Do all documents released under FOI require a version control page?

You mention an author.  Is Pfizer not an author?

As for Scam-detector, what is a "clean bill of health"?  Are you saying they are safe from viruses and for children?  Is that it?

Well, it might have been changed by my friends at MIT and Harvard, or one of the doctors who have questioned the whole thing. It is best that we know,

[Scott777]

For a start, being an 'OFFICIAL' document there would be a version control page at the beginning outlining change control. This is standard and would have the version, date and author, this has nothing! Even the properties of the document have no information: version or author and this isn't right.
I do work in the Pharma sector with companies like GEA and the controls are governed by APC and GMP, nothing gets done without version control.



As for Scam-detector, they get a clean bill of health from every reliable source on the net, unlike PHMPT who look like they are happy to host anything regardless of it's legitimacy.

So, Nick, what is an 'official' document?  Do all documents released under FOI require a version control page?

You mention an author.  Is Pfizer not an author?

As for Scam-detector, what is a "clean bill of health"?  Are you saying they are safe from viruses and for children?  Is that it?

[Sheepy]

The document that Scott posted up has had the contents changed and is therefore fake.

So one is a blatant lie and the other is also a lie because it has been changed, by whom and why?

[Nick]

Do explain the difference?

Simple.

One is based on a calculation which most people would disagree with (28 days), but that is the system.

The document that Scott posted up has had the contents changed and is therefore fake.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/leaked-covid19-vaccine-data/

[Sheepy]

but that's down to how they do their calculations and not blatantly altering data.

Do explain the difference? 

[Nick]

They've even named it now.
Post Pandemic Stress Disorder - 300,000 extra problem heart cases.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/post-pandemic-stress-disorder-heart-conditions-covid-london-physicians-b969436.html

Perhaps Nick could run his truth detector over the Evening Standard.

It's a newspaper, I don't need to.