Pfizer Press Release Admits To Vaccine Flaws

Dr John Campbell draws attention to missed details

Dr John Campbell has recently released a video highlighting an overlooked portion of the earlier Pfizer press release that was issued in response to the Project Veritas undercover video showing Pfizer deliberately mutating viruses.

It turns out, most people — including The Daily Beagle — missed a trick. What looks a mundane promotional filler section for Pfizer to promote the poisons they sell, actually hides many giant red flags.

Dr John Campbell can only carefully and vaguely hint towards the issue, given the aggressive levels of YouTube censorship, however on Substack we can have a fully fledged discussion now he’s raised it.

Most will be obvious to those working on exposing the shots, but for members of the public not familiar, some may be a surprise. We’ll try to highlight all aspects.

1. Shots Never Got Full Approval

Pfizer admit they have not received full approval and that they are still operating under emergency use:

Emergency uses of the vaccines have not been approved or licensed by FDA but have been authorized by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

In theory this means when Joe Biden ends the emergency on 11th May of this year, it will be invalid. Not that it’s much comfort to those seriously injured by the shots.

2. Now They Advise Informing Of Health Issues

Pfizer have now U-turned, and are now suggesting you inform your ‘vaccination provider’ about all of your medical conditions, including those primarily associated with Pfizer shots, such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

Interestingly, receiving ‘another COVID-19 vaccine’ is considered a “medical condition” according to Pfizer.

3. Admits It Doesn’t Protect Everyone

Pfizer then write the most ambiguous admission of all, the biggest U-turn since their ‘95% effective’ claim, where they vaguely state the “vaccine may not protect everyone”.

This is a legal disclaimer so large you could fly a fleet of airliners through it. ‘May not protect everyone’ includes the statement ‘protects absolutely no-one at all’.

4. They Use Different Probability Terminology

This is arguably one of the biggest red flags. So Pfizer intentionally avoids using medical terminology for probability (such as very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare, etc), and instead uses the meaningless term “remote chance”.

In medical terminology, the terms common, uncommon, rare, etc all relate to very specific probability categories, as shown in the table below (reference):

“Remote chance” is not defined within medical literature. Why are Pfizer doing this?

They want to give the misleading impression that the risk of severe reactions is low, but without incurring the legal culpability of dishonestly claiming it was ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’, so instead they use an ambiguous non-medical term which can vaguely mean whatever they want it to mean.

Essentially, Pfizer are confirming that the severe reactions are not rare, and are so common that they don’t want to use the medically accurate term for it so they don’t look bad.

5. Pfizer Admit To Adverse Reactions (But Only Some)

Pfizer try to play off adverse reactions as ‘side-effects’ rather than the main, intended effects, but they’re forced to admit that, yes, people who take their shots do in-fact experience myocarditis and pericarditis.

The list goes on, trying to obfuscate and bury the severe reactions with mundane ones like ‘tiredness’ and ‘feeling unwell’, but here’s all the damning ones we could see:

This one that tries to make it sound like simply the act of being injected caused the fainting, rather than the poison shot itself:

And this one, which clearly refers to babies (even though Pfizer don’t clarify this), showing that they have “unusual and persistent poor feeding”:

Which is in a group of other “unusual and persistent” groups, which all look like they are baby-related:

Then, to try to escape listing the damning wall of text 9 pages long of adverse reactions (jump to page 30 of this document), Pfizer then shrugs their shoulders and remarks “these may not be all the possible side effects of these vaccines”.

Are they really going to try to play dumb to the others when the document covering it has been published? Seems like legal fraud by omitting the others and then trying to act like you’re somehow ignorant of a list you were forced to publish.

6. Pfizer Add ‘Fact Sheets’ Which Confirm Harms

Pfizer then lists a collection of ‘Fact Sheet’ pages for various shots. Odd how they only waited until after the Project Veritas story to do this.

Given many will be similar, The Daily Beagle only picked one to cover, which is the one intended for those between the ages of 6 months to 4 years old. The insert goes on to admit, again, that Pfizer shots cause myocarditis and pericarditis:

Pfizer then try to gaslight after mentioning children who got myocarditis and pericarditis from their shots required intensive care support:

For the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, the observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support [...]

They admit the highest risk group are children, who end up in ICU! Scandalous!

7. Pfizer Admit Paxlovid Is Under Emergency Authorisation Only

The same Paxlovid they’re trying to scapegoat for their virus mutation research hasn’t been approved, only given ‘emergency authorisation’.

Creating new bioweapons upon the populace is justified circularly by the emergency authorisation created by the bioweapons. Mindblowing.

8. They Admit St John’s Wort Is A Potent CYP3A Inducer

A bit out-of-field but worth highlighting. Not simply a “CYP3A Inducer” either, but a potent one.

Contraindicated, for those not familiar, means a ‘counter indication’ (contra - against). It means evidence or observations that go against a particular medical decision making route.

In this case, Pfizer admit that St John’s Wort is so potent as CYP3A inducer, that it actually interferes with Paxlovid’s ability to work, and sits on the same level as anticancer drugs like ‘apalutamide’.

It does not necessarily mean St John’s Wort can treat cancer (studies ought to be conducted), but it is an interesting thing to note that a pharmaceutical company has been forced to admit to the potency of it.

9. They Admit Paxlovid Horribly Damages The Skin

Quoting:

Cases of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported with ritonavir, a component of PAXLOVID

Stevens-Johnson syndrome is a really nasty disease that hideously deforms and damages the skin of a patient.

Substack does not yet have the concept of spoiler tags, and this may not be an appropriate viewing experience for some people, so if you want to see the kind of horrible damage it does, have a look on Wikipedia here.

10. They Admit Paxlovid Causes Liver Damage

As mentioned before, ‘hepatocytes’ are liver cells, from the Greek ‘hepar’ meaning ‘liver’. Words ending with the term “itis” means ‘inflammation’. So ‘hepatitis’ means ‘liver inflammation’.

Your liver is your body’s system for filtering toxins from the bloodstream. It’s why alcoholics — who drink alcohol, which is a toxin in the bloodstream — suffer liver damage over time.

This isn’t like a skin inflammation where you’d expect it to happen on odd occassions. Inflammation of the liver is a major red flag that it is having difficulty with clearing out toxins from the bloodstream, which is a bad sign.

They even scream, buried at the very bottom of the page, that Paxlovid isn’t recommended for people with liver issues:

They also scream that it shouldn’t be used in anyone suffering from kidney (‘renal’) damage either.

You’d think they’d print that on the front of the box.

11. They Admit To Aiding HIV Resistance

Pfizer admit there is a “risk”, of which they do not qualify how likely, given chances are it’s basically 100% guaranteed, that paxlovid can aid HIV-1 to develop resistance to HIV protease inhibitors.

Odd treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2. Wasn’t it supposed to be not related to HIV?

12. Haven’t Tested Paxlovid In Pregnant Women

At this point we should not be surprised that the criminals at Pfizer don’t care about pregnant women, or children, and have not conducted any studies into pregnant ladies with Paxlovid.

The evil bastards at Pfizer then try to vaguely suggest — without evidence — that there’s a risk to pregnant women from COVID-19 if they are left “untreated” — all to try to obfuscate the fact their product is a danger to pregnant women.

They also haven’t done any breastfeeding studies, either, and the few they have done all look bad. Quoting:

A transient decrease in body weight was observed in the nursing offspring of rats administered nirmatrelvir. Limited published data reports that ritonavir is present in human milk.

---

All in all, it’s further evidence that Pfizer knows what they are selling is a toxic mess, what they’re doing is evil with disasterous consequences, and yet they hope no-one can see past their razor-thin lies and misdirections.

For most of you, the admissions will not come as a surprise, but it shows Pfizer can no longer argue against the overwhelming avalanche of evidence of their crimes against humanity. It is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at damage control for the massive backlash.

Even now the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media are silent on the fact Pfizer were engineering viruses. Look over there, a Chinese balloon!