Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Safe and effective? Must just be a coincidence.
2023-09-13, emphasis added.
group of researchers are calling into question Pfizer's and BioNTech's early trial data on its original COVID-19 vaccine after a forensic analysis revealed significant inconsistencies between data in the companies’ six-month interim report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators.
...In numerous cases, researchers found that documentation did not support the cause of death diagnosis or allow one to rule out the possibility of a cardiovascular event with an autopsy.
...“In general, our review of the CRFs found them to be lacking in detail and extremely difficult to interpret and develop a good timeline of events,” researchers wrote. “Often, a subject’s pre-trial clinical history was absent. Absent also were results of the extensive array of medical testing carried out at the pre-trial screening and at other regularly scheduled visits.”... information in the CRFs was often insufficient to support the investigator's conclusions regarding the cause of death.
..."Both Pfizer presenters and the FDA committee failed to ask for and review deaths that occurred in the clinical trial participants after the data cutoff. As a result, they missed a more than three-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Epoch Times in an email.
..."Had it not been for the successful court case brought by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, no one outside of the Pfizer and BioNTech corporations would have had the opportunity to investigate the original data generated by this clinical trial and none of the discrepancies reported here would have been revealed," they added.
...Despite early warning signals and other reported adverse events in the post-marketing of mRNA vaccines, the Pfizer vaccine has not been removed from the market and has been approved for the nation's youngest children. At the very least, the researchers said they hope their analysis will inform physicians and other medical professionals of the dangers of the mRNA vaccines so that they can better advise their patients on the personal risks compared with the benefits of getting vaccinated. "This would return healthcare decisions back to individuals and their medical providers where it belongs."
The Epoch Times has contacted both Pfizer and the FDA for comment and has not yet received a response.
WIND: risky or not? When you see that kind of sloppy work along with aggressive attempts to hide data and delay its release for decades, guilt must be assumed excepting children and idiots.
Real science means questioning everything. Especially data provided by the fox about the henhouse. Such investigations are highly appropriate in raising a flag (which is not proof), which should be further evaluated.
IMO, all data provided by Big Pharma is highly suspect, let alone the data and studies that never see the light of day, which is one of many ways that major problems are hidden. Our system of letting the fox guard the henhouse is an absurd conflict of interest, supported by the revolving door to/from the FDA/CDC.
Big Pharma has a long and sordid history (see court settlements!) of cheating/lying/faking/modifying data. Why should the biggest prize of all ($100B profits!), developed faster than any “vaccine” every before, be different?