More than 25,000 patients missing from Pfizer data… were they deleted on purpose?

More than 25,000 patients missing from Pfizer data… were they deleted on purpose?

(Planet Today) Safety data on 35,706 patients who participated in Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” trials has gone missing, more than likely intentionally as part of a massive cover-up.

Dr. Clare Craig posted on Twitter about what she describes as a “*big* gap between Pfizer’s claims and what their latest data release shows.”

The abstract of Pfizer’s latest study claims that as of the cut-off date on October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least two months of safety data available after their second dose and contributed to the main safety data set.

Fair enough. But according to Dr. Craig, the figures do not add up. The protocol was supposed to be that participants received their first dose of a Fauci Flu shot upon enrollment, followed by a second dose three weeks later. (Related: Pfizer is being overwhelmed with side effect reports from its covid shots.)

“So to have 2 months follow up after the second dose would mean being recruited more than 11 weeks earlier i.e. on or before 24th July 2020,” Dr. Craig wrote as part of a lengthy exposé of tweets about the matter.

“The first patient to be recruited was recruited on 27th July 2020 … So the number who had 2 months follow up after the 2nd dose was a big fat zero.”

What else is Pfizer lying about?

There is an extremely remote chance that this was simply the world’s worst typo, and that Pfizer meant two months after the first dose. But what then?

Pfizer’s latest release includes a document covering the first 360 patients who wre recruited from July 27-30. For these first four days, 90 participants per day, on average, were added to the rolls.

Pfizer has since released a document on the first 6,000 patients recruited from July 27 to August 14, which averages another 316 patients per day added between day five through day 19.

“To have 2 months follow up on 9th Oct we could be generous and say you only need 8 weeks or 56 days,” Dr. Craig writes. “That means you would need to be recruited on 14th August.”

“But they didn’t claim all of them had 2 months follow up they claimed that was a median.”

By August 14, only 6,000 patients had been recruited. Two months could still be the median, in this scenario, if another 6,000 patients were recruited after that day, which would bring the absolute maximum number of patients with two-month follow-ups after the first dose to 12,000.

The problem is that Pfizer claims that at the cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least two months of safety data available after their second dose of the shot, this contributing to the primary safety data set.

“How can this claim be so wrong?” Dr. Craig asks.

This would hardly be the first time that Pfizer made a “mistake” with the data or flat-out lied about the figures to make its products appear safer and more effective than they really are.

The covid jab fiasco is arguably the most disturbing component of Pfizer’s polluted portfolio of drug offerings. And the truth just continues to flow as experts unpack the data reports and discover anomalies such as this that beg more questions than answers as to what is really going on with all this.

“They knew of the side effects and deliberately withheld the information,” wrote someone at Natural News about how Pfizer is probably covering up patient data in an attempt to hide these side effects from the public.

“They (Pfizer) are killers of the worst kind and deserve capital punishment, not jail time.”

The latest news about Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” can be found at Vaccines.news.

(Article by Ethan Huff republished from Citizens.news)

Planet Today

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. PT is not responsible for any legal risks. The material mentions COVID-19. Trust verified information from expert sources — check out answers to questions about coronavirus and vaccinations from doctors, scientists and scientific correspondents. This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. facebook twitter telegram reddit vk pinterest youtube external-link

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post

AD News

AD News

نموذج الاتصال