TL;DR: I can see why they discontinued it at the time and tried to redact. I read that they advise not administering near a nerve, but the deal breaker is that 2 of the 12 (young) participants had severe local reactions, even at the lower dose.
They also reported poor immunogenicity in rats and NHPs, non human primates.
IMOH this should never have progressed beyond rodent studies.
* * *
6.1.1.2.4 BNT162c2 - Summary of safety
BNT162c2 has been tested at doses of 0.1, 0.3, and 1 Ī¼g. Minimal reactogenicity was reported with any local reactions (chiefly pain) being mild or moderate and present in 4, 7, and 11 subjects in each dose cohort respectively. Systemic reactions showed little dose dependency overall with 7, 7, and 8 subjects reporting any systemic reaction by respective dose cohort.
2 subjects each in the 0.3 and 1.0 Ī¼g cohorts reported severe local reactions. All reported events were self-limiting or simply managed. No SAEs were reported and no subjects have withdrawn due to an AE. At the time of preparation of this summary, the overall assessment of safety data following dosing with BNT162c2 has not changed.
...7.2 Posology and method of administration
The BNT162 vaccines are intended for IM administration in the upper arm (deltoid muscle) using two doses 21 day apart (P/B regimen). For BNT162c2, optionally a single dose regimen is also under investigation. The vaccine should not be injected into areas where there may be a major nerve trunk
Remember, in the 1970's, after 50+ US Service personnel died following a 'VAX CURE' for Swine Flu, the US Government cancelled the Vax Program. This time the numbers are in the millions but the CULL continues. How can this be real? Unjabbed Mick (UK).
Thank you for this link! That's what I lost after loosing the 2-nd computer in 'covid' times, you see it my logo, the second one, in a fire of 'unknown origin'....
Anyway, on page 395 of this report you get the 'totally random' list of deaths among the participants:
- 2 OLDER in BNT162b2 group (death heart./blood related)
- 2 OLDER in placebo group (death heart/blood related)
- 2 YOUNGER in placebo group, with UNKNOWN cause of deaths...
and that despite of recruiting totally healthy participants, from what I remember...
What an unfortunate chain of events, with few questions:
1. who were the participants, military personnel who would die one day anyway, and nobody would ask why? And what really was in the placebo 'solutions'??
2. the 2 UNEXPLAINED deaths among the young ones, make the 50% of 'safe and effective' LIE!
The entire CRIME is sickening to the bottom of the stomach!
Btw. how those who do the lethal injections, know where the major nerve trunk is in every arm???
Do you happen to know the link with the thousands of confidentially admitted side effects of the injections?? With the genetic mutation on one of the human chromosomes right on the top of the list?
Also, note that none of these studies identify what is in the āplaceboā shot. In many prior vaccine studies, the new vaccine was tested against a āplaceboā which was an already-approved vaccine. Not a placebo at all! The number of AEās with the COVID vaccine placebos indicate that the placebos were not inert but in fact had something in them that also caused AEās. There is speculation that the āplacebosā may have been LNPās with no mRNA: hardly inert. The Pharma companies refuse to identify what was used in their studies. Trust the science???
The study mentions the placebo is 'saline' (salt water) which is probably the only thing they did right. They go on to then compare three different phases of the SA mRNA shot to each other (the classic 'compare bad vaccines to bad vaccines so they don't seem bad' trick).
In this case, the fraud is so bad it doesn't really matter what the placebo is, because they limit what can be reported in terms of harms, and move the goalposts on what constitutes 'COVID-19', which is apparently, everything or not-everything depending on which group it is.
it would be extremely interesting to get few of the participants in those 'trials' and find out more...
In the meantime the sceintists=criminals, according to MIT, quote"But now, in a surprise twist, the team that earned the Nobel Prize in chemistry for developing CRISPR is asking to cancel two of their own seminal patents"
Big Pharma are 'experts' in skulduggery, falsifying evidence and deceit. They corrupt any set of data by modifying format which hides reality, dangers, inefficacy. They play with data to such a degree even deadly results become hidden and modified, making these dangerous Self-Assembling mRNA POISONS seem 'SAFE & EFFECTIVE'.
Nobody trusts the pharmaceutical industry since the Covid & Vax Scams were so blatantly aimed at PROFIT MAKING and the DEPOPULATION of the planet. Even Doctors & MDs are complicit in MURDER because they all know what's been going on but choose to remain in employment!
'LIABILITY' for Pfizer's, Moderna's, etc, (for causing INJURIES AND DEATHS, from their crap medicines), is the very least we will accept before TRUST can be reconsidered. Even though Big Pharma is too steeped in corruption and treachery to be capable of regaining an honest attitude towards human health and wellbeing.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) We will never forget what they attempted - Revenge will be sweet!
Over the long term, keep highlighting instances and patterns of blatant fraud publicly in major papers. The more blatant the fraud, the more damaging it is to the reputation of the journal that publishes those papers.
Unfortunately, the journals that publish these papers are private institutions, so they're free to publish any old garbage - however their reputation and credibility is a cornerstone for people to want to publish their papers there.
From a far more pragmatic standpoint, if one has the time and money - start a new journal outlet, and implement rigorous controls on paper submission. I personally would design the system in the following way:
1) Require all raw data to be publicly available immediately (a large majority of fraudulent papers fail this). Confidentiality/privacy is irrelevant as test participants can be required to consent to disclosure of details.
2) Raw data should include, but must not be limited to: ingredients of the product (no proprietary placeholder names like "ALC-0315" but the specific molecular structure), exact dosage (measured), and firms/businesses hired to conduct the 'research'
3) Make a draft copy of the paper publicly viewable during the acceptance period, and permit any member of the public to raise concerns during this time. Have a dedicated website portal exclusively for critical review of upcoming papers. Concerns must be published publicly. Concerns do not require personally identifiable information in order to be raised.
4) Any fraudulent paper by an author, immediately results in all of their other papers being withdrawn, regardless of the validity of those papers; this discourages authors from submitting a lot of good papers to act as cover for a bad paper.
5) Fraud is classified as the willful, intentional deception or omission of crucial data. Any author involved in this gets blacklisted. It is not to be confused with unintentional data errors.
6) Any dubious or erroneous paper (has data errors but fraud has not been established) by an author should automatically trigger a deep dive into their overall publishing history. If a series of data errors are uncovered, they must be blacklisted.
7) All withdrawals/retractions of papers must have transparent, clear reasoning, must include a valid *evidenced* justification for the withdrawal, and cannot be initiated by just one person or approved by just one person. In the event of the withdrawal, a panel must be convened, and the members of that panel are named. Non-reviewers (E.G. CEOs, general staff) have no power to initiate a withdrawal, and editors can only initiate, but cannot approve, a withdrawal (a randomised panel to assess the concerns raised on the paper are the only means of approval).
8) Payment is given upfront to cover costs of review, and is non-refundable. This prevents the journal from being obliged to publish.
9) The journal has a bounty system allowing third parties to donate funds into an anonymous pot; bounties are then paid out whenever someone correctly spots a fraudulent paper (this is classified as a paper that is withdrawn on the basis of fraud). They receive a small bounty if the paper just has basic errors.
10) Universities, governments pay for priority access to the newest papers once published; papers automatically become public for free after a set period of time allowing them to be reviewed. This discourages the journal from "holding onto" papers that later turn out to be bogus.
11) The journal sells 'intense scrutiny' services at a higher premium, where the extra money is used to pay examiners to analyse the paper intensely for flaws. If they pass, they gain a mark on the paper showing they underwent intense scrutiny (basically, a seal of quality).
12) Withdrawn paper titles, their URL, the reasoning for withdrawal, and the authors involved, are made publicly searchable in a simple API database, allowing other journals and investigators to review patterns of fraud.
13) Training courses are created and made publicly available teaching how to spot for fraud, and common patterns of fraudulent datasets and data manipulation practices. This allows both educators and members of the public to know what to look for. It should be a comprehensive list with summaries and examples.
14) A running internal image database is used to aid spotting stolen, duplicate, and copied images (including rotated images), anti-plagarism algorithms are run against papers to spot common duplicate phrases, and fraud-resistant algorithms look for common 'red flag' phrases that might indicate a paper is fraudulent/dishonest.
15) Permit suggestions for improvements on fraud spotting and surveillance techniques from the wider peer review community.
16) Periodically run "red team" exercises where a team of security researchers try to get made-up/fraudulent papers past your review system, and analyse for failures if it occurs.
17) Create a social points incentive scheme where aliased accounts can earn points for data errors spotted, fraudulent papers caught etc (admittedly dark pattern psychology but with the goal of solving a major issue in publishing)
18) Create an API that permits the searching/analysis of papers so third party researchers are able to conduct research to spot fraud.
19) Invite talks and advisories from seasoned fraud spotters.
Unredacted safety summary for BNT162c2.
TL;DR: I can see why they discontinued it at the time and tried to redact. I read that they advise not administering near a nerve, but the deal breaker is that 2 of the 12 (young) participants had severe local reactions, even at the lower dose.
They also reported poor immunogenicity in rats and NHPs, non human primates.
IMOH this should never have progressed beyond rodent studies.
* * *
6.1.1.2.4 BNT162c2 - Summary of safety
BNT162c2 has been tested at doses of 0.1, 0.3, and 1 Ī¼g. Minimal reactogenicity was reported with any local reactions (chiefly pain) being mild or moderate and present in 4, 7, and 11 subjects in each dose cohort respectively. Systemic reactions showed little dose dependency overall with 7, 7, and 8 subjects reporting any systemic reaction by respective dose cohort.
2 subjects each in the 0.3 and 1.0 Ī¼g cohorts reported severe local reactions. All reported events were self-limiting or simply managed. No SAEs were reported and no subjects have withdrawn due to an AE. At the time of preparation of this summary, the overall assessment of safety data following dosing with BNT162c2 has not changed.
...7.2 Posology and method of administration
The BNT162 vaccines are intended for IM administration in the upper arm (deltoid muscle) using two doses 21 day apart (P/B regimen). For BNT162c2, optionally a single dose regimen is also under investigation. The vaccine should not be injected into areas where there may be a major nerve trunk
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19736_S0369-dsur-22apr2020-21apr2021.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjShJDqgNKIAxUfVUEAHbVRFzMQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0TZp0EVu4C-dQ80t1oZ0l_
Remember, in the 1970's, after 50+ US Service personnel died following a 'VAX CURE' for Swine Flu, the US Government cancelled the Vax Program. This time the numbers are in the millions but the CULL continues. How can this be real? Unjabbed Mick (UK).
and the amino acid sequence IDENTITY of the universally injected covid Spike with the patented swine flu vaccines is ~37%....
Thanks mejbcart. I only wish I was clever enough to understand and process the info you kindly sent. Regards! Unjabbed Mick (UK).
Thank you for this link! That's what I lost after loosing the 2-nd computer in 'covid' times, you see it my logo, the second one, in a fire of 'unknown origin'....
Anyway, on page 395 of this report you get the 'totally random' list of deaths among the participants:
- 2 OLDER in BNT162b2 group (death heart./blood related)
- 2 OLDER in placebo group (death heart/blood related)
- 2 YOUNGER in placebo group, with UNKNOWN cause of deaths...
and that despite of recruiting totally healthy participants, from what I remember...
What an unfortunate chain of events, with few questions:
1. who were the participants, military personnel who would die one day anyway, and nobody would ask why? And what really was in the placebo 'solutions'??
2. the 2 UNEXPLAINED deaths among the young ones, make the 50% of 'safe and effective' LIE!
The entire CRIME is sickening to the bottom of the stomach!
Btw. how those who do the lethal injections, know where the major nerve trunk is in every arm???
Do you happen to know the link with the thousands of confidentially admitted side effects of the injections?? With the genetic mutation on one of the human chromosomes right on the top of the list?
Also, note that none of these studies identify what is in the āplaceboā shot. In many prior vaccine studies, the new vaccine was tested against a āplaceboā which was an already-approved vaccine. Not a placebo at all! The number of AEās with the COVID vaccine placebos indicate that the placebos were not inert but in fact had something in them that also caused AEās. There is speculation that the āplacebosā may have been LNPās with no mRNA: hardly inert. The Pharma companies refuse to identify what was used in their studies. Trust the science???
The study mentions the placebo is 'saline' (salt water) which is probably the only thing they did right. They go on to then compare three different phases of the SA mRNA shot to each other (the classic 'compare bad vaccines to bad vaccines so they don't seem bad' trick).
In this case, the fraud is so bad it doesn't really matter what the placebo is, because they limit what can be reported in terms of harms, and move the goalposts on what constitutes 'COVID-19', which is apparently, everything or not-everything depending on which group it is.
it would be extremely interesting to get few of the participants in those 'trials' and find out more...
In the meantime the sceintists=criminals, according to MIT, quote"But now, in a surprise twist, the team that earned the Nobel Prize in chemistry for developing CRISPR is asking to cancel two of their own seminal patents"
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/25/1104475/nobel-prize-winners-cancel-crispr-patents-europe/
is it because of fraud or disclosing too much? WHO knows...
Big Pharma are 'experts' in skulduggery, falsifying evidence and deceit. They corrupt any set of data by modifying format which hides reality, dangers, inefficacy. They play with data to such a degree even deadly results become hidden and modified, making these dangerous Self-Assembling mRNA POISONS seem 'SAFE & EFFECTIVE'.
Nobody trusts the pharmaceutical industry since the Covid & Vax Scams were so blatantly aimed at PROFIT MAKING and the DEPOPULATION of the planet. Even Doctors & MDs are complicit in MURDER because they all know what's been going on but choose to remain in employment!
'LIABILITY' for Pfizer's, Moderna's, etc, (for causing INJURIES AND DEATHS, from their crap medicines), is the very least we will accept before TRUST can be reconsidered. Even though Big Pharma is too steeped in corruption and treachery to be capable of regaining an honest attitude towards human health and wellbeing.
Unjabbed Mick (UK) We will never forget what they attempted - Revenge will be sweet!
š¤ now who will take the bait? This time... we won't call it Ratsak š¤
How do we stop this?
Over the long term, keep highlighting instances and patterns of blatant fraud publicly in major papers. The more blatant the fraud, the more damaging it is to the reputation of the journal that publishes those papers.
Unfortunately, the journals that publish these papers are private institutions, so they're free to publish any old garbage - however their reputation and credibility is a cornerstone for people to want to publish their papers there.
From a far more pragmatic standpoint, if one has the time and money - start a new journal outlet, and implement rigorous controls on paper submission. I personally would design the system in the following way:
1) Require all raw data to be publicly available immediately (a large majority of fraudulent papers fail this). Confidentiality/privacy is irrelevant as test participants can be required to consent to disclosure of details.
2) Raw data should include, but must not be limited to: ingredients of the product (no proprietary placeholder names like "ALC-0315" but the specific molecular structure), exact dosage (measured), and firms/businesses hired to conduct the 'research'
3) Make a draft copy of the paper publicly viewable during the acceptance period, and permit any member of the public to raise concerns during this time. Have a dedicated website portal exclusively for critical review of upcoming papers. Concerns must be published publicly. Concerns do not require personally identifiable information in order to be raised.
4) Any fraudulent paper by an author, immediately results in all of their other papers being withdrawn, regardless of the validity of those papers; this discourages authors from submitting a lot of good papers to act as cover for a bad paper.
5) Fraud is classified as the willful, intentional deception or omission of crucial data. Any author involved in this gets blacklisted. It is not to be confused with unintentional data errors.
6) Any dubious or erroneous paper (has data errors but fraud has not been established) by an author should automatically trigger a deep dive into their overall publishing history. If a series of data errors are uncovered, they must be blacklisted.
7) All withdrawals/retractions of papers must have transparent, clear reasoning, must include a valid *evidenced* justification for the withdrawal, and cannot be initiated by just one person or approved by just one person. In the event of the withdrawal, a panel must be convened, and the members of that panel are named. Non-reviewers (E.G. CEOs, general staff) have no power to initiate a withdrawal, and editors can only initiate, but cannot approve, a withdrawal (a randomised panel to assess the concerns raised on the paper are the only means of approval).
8) Payment is given upfront to cover costs of review, and is non-refundable. This prevents the journal from being obliged to publish.
9) The journal has a bounty system allowing third parties to donate funds into an anonymous pot; bounties are then paid out whenever someone correctly spots a fraudulent paper (this is classified as a paper that is withdrawn on the basis of fraud). They receive a small bounty if the paper just has basic errors.
10) Universities, governments pay for priority access to the newest papers once published; papers automatically become public for free after a set period of time allowing them to be reviewed. This discourages the journal from "holding onto" papers that later turn out to be bogus.
11) The journal sells 'intense scrutiny' services at a higher premium, where the extra money is used to pay examiners to analyse the paper intensely for flaws. If they pass, they gain a mark on the paper showing they underwent intense scrutiny (basically, a seal of quality).
12) Withdrawn paper titles, their URL, the reasoning for withdrawal, and the authors involved, are made publicly searchable in a simple API database, allowing other journals and investigators to review patterns of fraud.
13) Training courses are created and made publicly available teaching how to spot for fraud, and common patterns of fraudulent datasets and data manipulation practices. This allows both educators and members of the public to know what to look for. It should be a comprehensive list with summaries and examples.
14) A running internal image database is used to aid spotting stolen, duplicate, and copied images (including rotated images), anti-plagarism algorithms are run against papers to spot common duplicate phrases, and fraud-resistant algorithms look for common 'red flag' phrases that might indicate a paper is fraudulent/dishonest.
15) Permit suggestions for improvements on fraud spotting and surveillance techniques from the wider peer review community.
16) Periodically run "red team" exercises where a team of security researchers try to get made-up/fraudulent papers past your review system, and analyse for failures if it occurs.
17) Create a social points incentive scheme where aliased accounts can earn points for data errors spotted, fraudulent papers caught etc (admittedly dark pattern psychology but with the goal of solving a major issue in publishing)
18) Create an API that permits the searching/analysis of papers so third party researchers are able to conduct research to spot fraud.
19) Invite talks and advisories from seasoned fraud spotters.