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

[Scott777]

How the hell would I know that, but the fact remains it was modified in Nov 2021, that is undeniable, the Meta data says so. And that date doesn't match the date and time stamp on the document.

So, how do you know the FDA didn't modify it?  The fact remains, the document is published by PHMPT, whose website is quoted by Reuters, linked to by Breitbart, and mentioned by a whole load of other websites.  So either there's a big conspiracy of doctors and all these websites, or someone hacked into the website and put it there, and still no one has noticed.  🤣

[Nick]

Who doctored it, Nick?  The doctors?

How the hell would I know that, but the fact remains it was modified in Nov 2021, that is undeniable, the Meta data says so. And that date doesn't match the date and time stamp on the document. 

[Scott777]

I am thinking you need to start again, which judge as they say it isn't real. Then they can take it up with the judge.

The case is in progress, Mark Pittman (Fort Worth, Texas) resides over it.  329,000 pages have been requested, they want 55 years to do it, and so the case is deciding on that timeline.  As I understand it, this document is part of it, although I may be wrong.  But was acquired under FOI, from the FDA, so it seems like it's part of the process of releasing the whole data.

https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/12/01/pfizer-vaccine-adverse-reaction-women-aged-31-to-50-hardest-hit.html
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/20/fda-wants-to-wait-until-2076-to-fully-release-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-data/

[Sheepy]

Pfizer ONLY released it under FOI, because a judge ordered them to.

I am thinking you need to start again, which judge as they say it isn't real. Then they can take it up with the judge.

[papasmurf]

Where is the direct link to the study?

[Scott777]

Please quote directly from the study.

[Nalaar]

The study is itself concerning because Pfizer ONLY released it under FOI, because a judge ordered them to.  It details over 1200 deaths in the first 90 days of vaccination, among other things.

Please quote directly from the study. 

[Scott777]

A document that was stolen and doctored is just accepted as being genuine. 

Who doctored it, Nick?  The doctors?

[Scott777]

Having read the study, can you quote directly from it which parts you find concerning.

The study is itself concerning because Pfizer ONLY released it under FOI, because a judge ordered them to.  It details over 1200 deaths in the first 90 days of vaccination, among other things.

[Nick]

What I find concerning is that anyone was fooled by Maajid Usman Nawaz.

I can assure I'm not, he's rabid. A document that was stolen and doctored is just accepted as being genuine. Yet still no sign of any kind of attempt to prove it. 

[papasmurf]

Having read the study, can you quote directly from it which parts you find concerning.

What I find concerning is that anyone was fooled by Maajid Usman Nawaz.

[Nalaar]

LBC reporting on the Pfizer study (in the OP).

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1467169857435222016

Having read the study, can you quote directly from it which parts you find concerning.

[Nick]

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'officially released'.  LBC did not say officially released by Pfizer.  You are arguing over semantics.  Pfizer did not publish it.  They would have sent it to the FDA or someone else.

No, it was stolen off there servers, I think I've made this quite clear. 

[Barry]

1 in 34, that is a total nonsense.

You do realise it is not 1 death in 34 people vaccinated, don't you?

[Scott777]

So how come your link, including your LBC one states it's an official release?

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'officially released'.  LBC did not say officially released by Pfizer.  You are arguing over semantics.  Pfizer did not publish it.  They would have sent it to the FDA or someone else.