Blockbuster Revelation - The Jabs You Received Were Never Tested

I had mentioned I would move on from the vaccine debate, unless something important came up. Well this is huge.

I'll give you a quick summary for you to decide if you want to read further. But I think you'll be interested in how this revelation came about.

Pfizer created two products. One for their safety trials, and one that can be mass produced for the public. And the research they submitted for FDA approval, was on product #1 that they used in the trials. No research was ever conducted on product #2, which was injected into billions of arms worldwide.

I really don't want to express how totally crazy this is. How insane that this was allowed to happen. But the FDA and the majority of the regulatory agencies worldwide, knew beforehand, that the data they received from Pfizer would not be on the product they were about to authorize. And any insight into the safety or efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, obtained from the original studies, which wasn't much anyway, as we have gone over how they skipped many of the safety checks, was of no use whatsoever. The product studied was never used outside those trials. And the product given to the public was never tested on anyone, not even lab animals. What they tested, we never got. And what we got,.. was never tested. 270 million people in the US alone, were treated like guinea pigs. And regulatory agencies around the world were in on this, approving this new, untested, never before achieved, mRNA vaccine.

This is almost incomprehensible. How could something like this happen? If this was a movie, you would walk out of the theater, shaking your head saying,… What idiot came up with this idea for a motion picture? This could never happen in real life. It is just not feasible. Governments would never take such a haphazard approach to the health and welfare of billions.

We now know Pfizer pulled a bait and switch for lack of a better term. The original Pfizer studies that were conducted and submitted to the FDA to obtain Emergency Use Authorization,.... was not on the product that was released to the public. I think we can now understand why there was such a huge discrepancy in adverse events, between the original Pfizer and Moderna studies and that of the V-Safe app data that found many more adverse events. The results of the original trials and that of the CDC's V-Safe, were on two completely separate and distinct products.

Just to recap,... in the Pfizer and Moderna original trials combined,... 1 in 800 had a serious adverse event. That is a far cry from what the CDC’s V-Safe app data found. 1 in 13 needed medical attention, and 1 in 54 went to the ER or were hospitalized. In the original Pfizer study there were 44,000 people. Don't know how many there were in the Moderna study,… but you can see that the original studies were fairly large. But that is nothing compared to the 10 million vaccinated individuals who participated in the CDC's V-Safe monitoring system. So with these pools large enough to collect meaningful data, how could there be such a huge difference in the rate of adverse events?  Well, this new revelation soundly puts this question to bed. If they are testing different products, of course results could drastically differ.

And to add insult to injury, they are using the original trials to cover themselves. By saying we didn’t see these effects in the studies, what you are experiencing is not likely vaccine related. i.e… menstrual and fertility issues, cancers remerging, dormant viruses reactivating, autoimmunity worsening or newly acquired, so on and so forth.

This blockbuster revelation came about just recently (Sept 2023). And it comes by way of two gents seeking the truth. Josh A Guetzkow is an academic with a PhD, teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He wrote an open letter to the BMJ (British Medical Journal) responding to a paper. And in his response to the BMJ, he said,... 

"An October 2020 amendment to the protocol of the pivotal Pfizer/BioNTech clinical trial indicates that nearly all vaccine doses used in the trial came from ‘clinical batches’ using what is referred to as ‘Process 1’. However, in order to upscale production for large-scale distribution,….. a new method was developed, ‘Process 2’. The differences include changes to the DNA template used to transcribe the RNA and the purification phase, as well as the manufacturing process of the lipid nanoparticles….. The protocol amendment states that 'Process 2’-manufactured BNT162b2 would be administered to approximately 250 participants 16 to 55 years of age” with comparative immunogenicity and safety analyses conducted with 250 randomly selected ‘Process 1’ batch recipients. To the best of our knowledge, there is no publicly available report on this comparison of ‘Process 1’ versus ‘Process 2’ doses.” Effect of mRNA Vaccine Manufacturing Processes on Efficacy and Safety Still an Open Question | The BMJ (May 2023)

Now just to check if this was true, I took a look at Pfizer's clinical trial protocol. And it said on page 46, under Manufacturing Process...

"The scale of the BNT162b2 manufacturing has been increased to support future supply. BNT162b2 generated using the manufacturing process supporting an increased supply (“Process 2”) will be administered to approximately 250 participants 16 to 55 years of age, per lot, in the study. The safety and immunogenicity of  BNT162b2 using “Process 1,” with material supporting increased supply, “Process 2,” will be described.
In brief, the process changes relate to the method of production for the DNA template that RNA drug substance is transcribed from, and the RNA drug substance purification method. The BNT162b2 drug product is then produced using a scaled-up LNP manufacturing process.".... C 4591001 Clinical Protocol Nov 2020 Pfizer - Page 46 : Internet Archive 

Here in this protocol, Pfizer admits to changing processes in order to create a vaccine they can mass produce. Which will introduce impurities and quality control issues consistent with any type of upscaling. Pfizer mentions changes in purification, changes in the DNA template, and changes in making the lipid nanoparticles. In essence, an entirely new product that must be retested. And as you can see, they planned on testing this new product on only 250 people. The original trials consisted of 44,000 participants. And as Josh wrote in his open letter, he could not find the results of this tiny, likely insignificant test anywhere.

Of note: Since this story broke,... Pfizer deliberately replaced the trial protocol to a later amended one that excludes the passage quoted above. There is now no mention of testing 'Process 2' on 250 people. This was the link I was originally going to use, but as you can see, there is no mention of this now on page 46. And it was there two days ago, when I first looked. The quote from the Pfizer protocol I posted above, I had to get from the Internet Archive.

Now if all this wasn't interesting enough, there's more...

Nick Hunt worked for the UK's Ministry of Defense in various roles. He is now a retired citizen concerned with what's going on, like many of us. He along with colleagues wrote a scathing report on the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency). The UK equivalent of the FDA. The report goes into detail how that agency failed miserably to protect the commonwealth during the pandemic.

Anyway,… he had read the open letter by Josh, and was taken by the fact that we haven't seen the test results of the 'Process 2 Product',... going on almost 3 years now. So he made a FOIA request to the MHRA. And after a short back and forth in trying to pry this information from the regulatory agency, that by the way, we are all entitled to,... they finally replied properly to his request...

"To provide helpful context and background, in the early stages of the pandemic, before BNT162b2 was authorized or approved, improvements were made to the manufacturing process to adjust the scalability, robustness, and productivity in preparation for large scale manufacture (Process 2); scaling of manufacturing processes is a common occurrence in the manufacture of medicines. Manufacturing steps that were not scalable were replaced with those designed to provide a similar or better impurity profile. This “process 2 drug” substance was shown to be comparable through side-by-side comparability studies and heightened characterization testing…. Typically, such changes can be supported by analytical data; however, due to the nascent regulatory landscape for COVID-19 vaccines, in October 2020 an exploratory objective was added in the C4591001 study to describe safety and immunogenicity of vaccines produced by manufacturing “Process 1” or “Process 2” in participants 16 to 55 years of age. This exploratory objective was removed and documented in protocol amendment 20 in September 2022 due to the extensive usage of vaccines manufactured via “Process 2”. Thus, this process comparison was not conducted……."  Internal Review of FOIA Request - 23/510.pdf (Sept 2023)

They never conducted the study. And this study was scheduled to be completed and shown to regulatory authorities in early 2021, a few weeks after the rollout. And yet here they are saying,… they dropped the study in Sept. 2022, more than a year and half after regulatory agencies had expected it. How was it that the MHRA was ok with this? To not have any research whatsoever,… to suggest this product was "Safe and Effective."

Oh wait,... they had a side by side comparison. That's like comparing a Little Debbie cupcake to a Hostess cupcake. They both look very similar side by side, but are worlds apart in taste and satisfaction. So in effect, they used the entire population as test subjects for a novel experimental vaccine, never before able to pass a single safety study, in the 10 plus years of mRNA technology.

If you would like to see the two guys that brought this to light, here is Josh Guetzkow being interviewed on this incredible revelation... Pfizer's "Bait-and-Switch"

And Nick Hunt giving highlights of the MHRA report, which was months before he received a reply to his FOIA request... MHRA - Is it Safe and Effective? | Nick Hunt

I think after this sinks in, we all deserve a nice, refreshing ride on a giant hamster wheel,… brought to you by Pfizer.

Stay safe and be well….