Six months safety and efficacy of Pfizer

  • Updated:1 year ago
  • Reading Time:3Minutes
  • Post Words:581Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Research funded by pharmaceutical companies claims vaccine safety

Leading medical journals have published many articles, that allegedly confirm the benefits of vaccination.

One typical example is a recently published preprint reviewing six months safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 Pfizer vaccine. As it was funded by Pfizer/Biontech, involved mostly Pfizer employees, and lists a Pfizer employee as the corresponding author, the study can certainly not be called impartial.

Contrary to established scientific norms, the study was not double-blinded and, starting December 2020, participants were given the option of ‘unblinding’. Those in the Placebo group were offered the Pfizer shot. As a consequence, the actual follow-up period was much shorter than the six months indicated in the title (49% had <4 months post second dose), and no long-term study can be carried out in the future, due to the absence of a Placebo group.  

The paper admits, that there were “imbalances in adverse events (30% vs 14%), related adverse events (24% vs 6%), and severe adverse events (1.2% vs 0.7%) between BNT162b2 and placebo groups”. However, it insists that “few participants had serious adverse events”.

As far as deaths from all causes are concerned, 15 Pfizer and 14 Placebo participants died. That the Pfizer group had one more death than the Placebo group can be a coincidence. Nevertheless, for a disease that is supposedly as deadly as Covid, we would have expected a lot more deaths among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated. It is interesting, that the most frequent cause of death was cardiac arrest, which affected 4 Pfizer participants, but only 1 member of the Placebo group.

Health authorities and politicians often refer to scientific papers, that certify high vaccine efficacy. Unfortunately, most of these studies are financed by pharmaceutical companies and it is easy for them to increase efficacy to the desired level, for instance by choosing a favorable trial design and setting convenient endpoints. It is a scandal, that pharmaceutical companies can evaluate their own products, and publish the results in leading medical journals as content, and not as advertisement.

Even if Big Pharma does not directly finance a specific study, it can exert enough pressure on scientists, for instance by threatening to withdraw funding for other projects. To expect most research papers to be impartial is naïve. (01)

See full report on Live Beyond Borders for a lot more in-depth review and references: Covid vaccines are not as safe as we are told – Sept 30, 2021 (02)

Controversy surrounding the original Pfizer Trial

A recent published paper on the first Pfizer Vaccine Trial has FINALLY awoken some of the doctors who have been calling people “antivaxxers” or “conspiracy theorists” instead of taking more of an “investigative journalistic” approach and checking their claims. See this post for full details about the original Pfizer Trial. (03)

N Engl J Med 2020; 383:2603-2615 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

BMJ: Unclean Data in Vaccine Trials (Pfizer & FDA should be investigated & Rollout Halted) – November 10, 2021 (04)

Pfizer Posts:

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.