The Pfizer Documents
The FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep the vaccine trial results hidden for up to 75 years. Now we know why. There are some quite serious anomalies that are begging for answers.
One such example is the fact that the lead author on the seminal vaccine paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), one Fernando Polack, MD, just happened to be the only investigator in charge of a site in Argentina that purportedly managed to recruit 4,501 patients in just three weeks!
Is this even possible with a full team and the backing of a major contract research organization (CRO)? It’s quite the feat and it needs to be investigated and answers given.
Without more transparency some might be left wondering if perhaps there was fraud involved or that perhaps patient records were sloppy because the on-boarding pace was too rapid. Regardless, no such questions should ever be part of the landscape, especially not when it involves a brand new medical intervention platform (mRNA) that was mandated as a condition of continued education and/or employment.
Why were these records fought to be effectively sealed? Why wasn’t complete and open transparency a cornerstone of the entire program of mass vaccination in the first place?
Such a stunning lack of transparency and the hiding of records…This. Should. Never. Be. The. Case.
Otherwise, there’s no possibility of informed consent.
One of the key issues made obvious in the document release regarded the dose-ranging studies (or lack of).
For clarity, a dose-ranging study is what happens first, before the larger clinical trial to determine vaccine effectiveness. Before you can give something to a bunch of volunteers, you have to establish how much you should give. They do this by giving a range of doses, usually low, medium and high, and then measure the effects. In this case, they were seeking to know how much of an antibody response a given dose would trigger. You’d think that this is vital information to get right. You might imagine they would give a wide ranges of doses to hundreds of people in each dose range.
But, when I dug into the new batch of 80,000 clinical trial records, I discovered that the only records (so far) showing the measurement of antibody levels in dose-ranging studies revealed three things:
- The grand total number of people tested in the 18-55- and 65–85-year-old age brackets was just 12 in each.
- There apparently was a gap without any testing of the immunogenic response of 55–65-year-old age bracket.
- There was clear evidence the antibody levels varied enormously (10x) between patients, and for all patients tailed off significantly by one month after the second dose. This means it should have been 100% obvious to all authorities and Pfizer, that the shots weren’t going to last all that long and boosters would be soon needed.
Taken all together, this means that Fauci’s continued insistence that the rationale for getting the shots was to “achieve herd immunity so we can get back on with our lives” was completely unscientific and provably and known to be false.
I sincerely hope there are hundreds of yet-to-be-revealed records showing lots and lots of additional antibody level testing because otherwise we have to believe hundreds of millions of people of all different sizes, ages, races, and comorbidity levels were given a 30-microgram dose based off of just 12 data points.
Again, it’s not surprising that the FDA wanted to keep such shocking findings hidden for 75 years. The data is exceptionally embarrassing from every possible scientific, ethical and public health standpoint.
I break it all down here:
Watch the video
Listen to the Audio
Read the Full Transcript!The Pfizer Documents
Quick Disclaimer
The following is a transcript of recorded content. Please note, these transcripts are not always perfect and may contain typos. If you notice any major mistakes, please feel free to report them by opening a Technical Support ticket under the Help menu at the top of the screen.
Full Transcript
EP60_PART 1_The Pfizer Documents
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:00] Today we’re going to look at the Pfizer documents released out of the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. There’s a couple of oddities in there I’d like to cover with you. Come on, let’s go take a look
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:17] Hello. Hello, everybody. Dr. Chris Martenson here. Thank you so much for being here with us. All of us who care about truth, who care about the scientific process, who care about context, who care about being able to have commonsensical thoughts for ourselves. Thank you so much for being here today. It’s always a pleasure to have you here on the program with us.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:37] All right. So today we’re going to be looking at, of course, the Pfizer documents. These were ones that were released through the FOIA. And we have some more that came out. Remember, these are the ones that both Pfizer and the FDA said, “Hey, can we take, you know, 75 years to let those out? You know, because science,” I guess, or something like that. Anyway, these documents have come out.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:00:58] As a reminder, one of the documents that came out, again, was called “The 60 Day Post”. Or is it the 90 day? I think it’s the 90 day postmarketing surveillance safety study out of Pfizer. Nothing new in that. I reviewed that last December. You can look at that again there and got it pretty much right at that point in time. So nothing really to update you on that. So take a look at that. That’s the one that did report 1,200 plus deaths in that first 90 days. Of course, those may or may not be correlated. People would have to have studied those, did they? Not, as far as I can tell. So here we are looking today at a fresh batch of documents have come out. There’s a couple of oddities in there. I wanted to go over those with you. And so let’s go there today. And so we’re going to talk about this is is the Pfizer documents and, of course, the corresponding war on truth, by the way. Um, let’s go there. I’ll get my drawing tool because, you know, I like to draw stuff and we’ll start here.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:01:56] So this was the study heard around the world, in essence. So this is the original study put in the New England Journal of Medicine. NEJM came out December 10th. 2020 is when it was published, but of course it was submitted prior to that. So this is pretty darn early on. So this is reviewing the safety and efficacy of the Bnt162b2 mRNA, COVID 19 vaccine. That’s the Pfizer vaccine. The lead author on this, a Fernando Pollak, M.D. out of Argentina. And of course, there’s a lot of other people on there. And notice that these aren’t listed alphabetically. So the fact that Fernando is there in the first author position, which is a prime position in scientific paper world, if you didn’t know that it’s kind of there’s a few currencies that scientists trade in and besides ego, but one of them is your position on a paper really tells people a lot in the scientific community about your role on that paper. So this is a prime role right here, first authorship position. So we’re going to be talking about Fernando today more extensively. And then the corresponding author is this Judith Epsilon. And she works for Pfizer directly. So let’s this is the study. This is the one that that the FDA reviewed all the data. And this is the study that we’re now getting those Pfizer documents out, because those are trial documents, the trials that they conducted, the efficacy trials with 40 plus thousand people enrolled. This is the paper that resulted that was used for all sorts of things. It was used by OB-GYNs to say this is safe for pregnant mothers to take. It was used by college administrators to say, we are going to require mandate this vaccine as a condition of you attending our school, things like that. So it’s a very important paper and we want to review that really quickly now. Jikileaks over on Twitter big fan of Jikileaks fan account because of course Jiki gets booted off of Twitter pretty routinely. And by the way, you’re going to want to. How do I put this?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:04:02] Let me come back. Talk to you directly for a second. You may want to come by Peak Prosperity dot com. Just make sure you know where I am. I will always be posting there. Who knows how much longer I’m going to be allowed to talk out here in public? My subscribers, the people who have joined my site, we have a couple of different membership levels. They’re the ones who support everything that I do and that my team does. So I have a pretty good sized team. I pay everybody really good living wages. We have a lot of fun doing what we do and you know, we have a lot of expenses around that as well. So what do we do? Well, we’re out there every day, literally every day preparing content, trying to fight this fight as best we can. Talking to people, you know, arranging whatever we can do with our gifts and skills to help other people out there and other efforts that are about fundamentally bringing the truth or at least uncovering the B.S. I don’t know what know what the truth is, but I always smell B.S. when I’m smelling it. It’s my superpower and I have a Comcast connection. So between those two things, smelling B.S. and having a Comcast connection, I’m a very dangerous man to Twitter and other places like that. Possibly YouTube, although feels like things have softened up a little. We can say a little bit more, but the kinds of things I’m going to tell you today, absolutely no question about it, a year ago is instant banning. Okay. So now we can actually talk about it now.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:05:25] Why? Listen, if I’m giving misinformation, fine. I just put out a piece a couple of weeks ago and I talked about the Danish study, which just reviewed this same data, just reviewed as given the data from the pharma companies themselves to conclude that all cause mortality was not affected by the mRNA vaccines. Whereas for the adenovirus vector vaccines, which includes the JnJ and the AstraZeneca, which they looked at, they didn’t have a chance to look at China’s adenovirus or Russia’s adenovirus vector vaccines. So we don’t have that data, but at least those two actually reduced all cause mortality, which is, of course, what you would want in a pandemic vaccine. You would want it to reduce death. Very simple. So that was a very simple finding. And it’s inescapable. And there’s no other way to argue it. I got fact checked by PolitiFact, which said that was false. It reduced COVID deaths. And that’s what’s important here is, look, no PolitiFact, if you have it up on that one, it’s actually not what matters. What matters is all cause mortality. If you don’t have any impact on all cause mortality, you’re not really doing anything. Which means really doesn’t make sense to mandate these things as a condition of anything. Right. So from a risk benefit standpoint, a complete whiff PolitiFact, you know, we’ve done that, but LinkedIn actually went and yanked that video down and Facebook yanked that video down as misinformation. All I was doing was relaying to you information that was freely, publicly available already from other researchers, and that one was going into the Lancet.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:07:07] At any rate, let’s come back, you know, remember Peak Prosperity dot com if you want to make sure you don’t lose connection with me just in case, you never know. So let’s go back here now. Jikileak says we’re looking now at these clinical trials and here’s how they set up these clinical trials. They said they had to recruit 44,000 people or they did. They could have recruited more or less, but that’s how many they recruited. Of course, you don’t do that at just one site. You know, you have to go all over the world and you have to recruit a bunch of different sites. So they had a bunch of different sites. One of those was site 1231 and it was in Argentina and site 1231 recruit. It recruited 4501 patients. That was more than 10% of all the patients in the entire trial. Just one site. That’s exceptional because there are 270 sites. One of them was responsible for just over 10%. That’s not the most astonishing part.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:08:06] They recruited all these patients in just three weeks. This is astonishing in the world of clinical trials. That’s amazing. In fact, it’s so amazing, Jiki noted, and actually took the data from the released Pfizer documents. So this is the stuff that the FDA and Pfizer said, Can we just hold on to this for 75 years because it contains gems like this buried in there. And this gem shows the recruitment pattern for site 1231. And here’s what I see. That’s odd about that. It’s a straight line. There’s no I can’t detect if there are any weekends in there. Normally weekends aren’t a really good recruiting time for all sorts of reasons. It’s a very steady line. It doesn’t have a lot of wiggles and jiggles in it. Looks very contrived, we should say generously, but in a minimum, this should have raised alarm bells at Pfizer and at the FDA. Somebody should have started asking some questions, at least to be able to answer them and say, Here’s how this one site managed to achieve this remarkable recruitment profile. This is amazing. It’s a really that’s a really amazing profile they’ve got going on there.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:09:17] All right, Jiki, carrying on. And by the way, Jiki does great research. Jiki, whoever you are. Good stuff. But he writes, quote, Yet while doing all this, he, the lead investigator in Argentina who was responsible for that site, managed to find time to presumably single handedly, because no other authors are listed at that site, recruit 4500 patients in three weeks, with each patient requiring approximately 250 pages of case report forms. Those are CRFs. That’s about 1.125 million pages of cross all in three weeks. That’s amazing. Who was the lead investigator solely responsible for that site in Argentina that did that? You might be surprised to find that it’s Fernando Polak here. Same guy. Pretty interesting finding, right? Let’s carry on with us now.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:10:12] Here’s why. Let me. Here’s why. It’s so astonishing that you could recruit 231 patients every single day. That’s what 4500 over three weeks turns into in it to be able to do that. Here’s what’s here’s what’s required. So this is you don’t just recruit somebody. Somebody walks in the door, “oh, you’re good,” right? They had to they had exclusion criteria. There were things they needed to do to make sure, are you appropriate for this trial? Right. Are you the right age? You know, are you not too young or too old? Right. Are you have you already had COVID? Have you already had you gone to China and had a sign of vaccine? Are things right reasons, legit reasons why you would want to screen people. And that screening process takes time. But here was their flow diagram. They said that they had 44,820 excuse me, patients were screened. So that’s that’s a lot. 44,820. So 1272 did not undergo randomization. They didn’t make it into the trial. They bounced out because they didn’t meet the eligibility criteria. They had other reasons. They withdrew something. So then they had a pool left of 43,548 that underwent randomization. But randomization. Half go this way. Half go that way. All right. 99 dropped out because they weren’t vaccinated and one dropped out, didn’t sign the informed consent document. So that’s not bad.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:11:35] Out of 43,000 people, only one document got dropped in that process. Not bad. 43,448 is the remaining balance. They were injected with either vaccine or placebo, and they say 21,720 were assigned to receive the vaccine and 21,728 were assigned to receive placebo. Out of that, 37,706 received vaccine or placebo and had a median follow up at two months. So we’re not where those other people go. There’s a big missing blob. In case you didn’t notice, there’s some people missing. There are 41,000, 43,448, somehow skinny down to 37,000. And we don’t have any little box off to the side, say, where they went. They’re just not there. Those 37,706 continuing down over here oop breaks into 18,860, received one dose of the vaccine and the other 18,846 remaining received dose one of placebo under their 304 didn’t make it to dose two. 316 didn’t make it to dose two of placebo. For all those reasons, out of that, 18,556 remain down here and they receive dose two of the vaccine and 18,530 receive dose two placebo, and even then some dropped out.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:13:05] So what I’m hoping you can see here is that to bring people in and randomize them, there was a lot of steps that had to go through just to make sure that they could even undergo randomization. So this is the entire set of steps up here, which involves asking people questions, making sure that they filled out all their forms. And by the way, there’s like 250 forms each. And all of that happened for 4501 patients in just three weeks.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:13:30] This is an astonishing recruitment record. Really is maybe quite astonishing. We would say so. And then JikiLeaks goes on to note site 4444. But I’m sure all of that that he’s just talked about is totally aboveboard until we get to the next totally aboveboard feature of the fastest 44,000 patient study ever in history. Which is sight 4444, what the F is that? There were 270 clinical recruitment sites for the Pfizer vaccine studied numbered consecutively. And they started them like you might start a check register at 1000. So even though the first check you write might be 1001, so that’s how they started at 1000 series. So they were numbered consecutively from 1001 to 1270. They’re all listed here. And so I’ll show you that link in just a second. This is the last page and there is no site 1271. There is no other site with a number higher than 1270. Here is that last page. And you can see that site. 1270 had an investigator, Nicola Kline here. This was in California somewhere. And so that is the last site on this whole thing. What’s interesting is that, here’s where this all gets really fascinating. There are a lot of entries in the randomization log. So when the patients are randomized, they’re logged. A lot of patients were randomized in site 4444, 1275 patients, to be exact. It’s about 3% of the total patients. And you know what? All 175 patients were recruited in one week from the 22nd to the 27th of September 2020. That site for for for for there as compared to site 1 to 3 one here. Wow. That’s that’s pretty amazing what this site recruited really fast. What is this site? Kind of an interesting mystery here he’s raising. And what’s magical?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:15:30] He writes here about the week of the 22nd of September 2020. Well, that just happens to be the last week that recruitment can take place for the data cutoff for the FDA meeting in December. Just one problem, though. Well, too early quote, the site doesn’t exist and it’s totally and utterly fabricated.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:15:49] There is no principal investigator for site 4444 because it doesn’t exist. So what happened at site? 4444? We don’t know. But Josh Gutscow writes “Chris, It turns out the 4444 are from the same site. 1231. They did a second round in late September. So that means that almost 6000 subjects came from the same site, which turns out to be a military hospital in Argentina. So that’s a possible explanation. It’s a bit of a mystery, but you shouldn’t have mysteries like this in data like this, particularly not data that’s so critical and important even to the point of taking away people’s basic rights and liberties, that you want this data to be crystal clear, just just as clean as can possibly be. So that’s a bit of a mystery that’s going on there. And you think it’s a little odd. So it deserves to be looked into. And I absolutely hope that more people are going to be looking into this. It’s just one of the many mysteries that is showing up in these documents. I totally understand why those documents, why people want to keep these documents out of sight for a while. It’s embarrassing.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:16:57] Look, I get it. Sometimes when you’re doing things quickly, you make a few mistakes and you don’t want anything to contribute to the idea that possibly corners were cut or maybe the results can be questioned. You don’t want to give ammunition to people who are doubters, you know, because you feel it’s that important, right? That important to make sure there’s no hesitancy out there. So we’re just going to take all the warts and just hide them.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:17:21] I think that’s a bad strategy. I think that by hiding warts, you actually make the warts bigger and more obvious, you know? So that’s why they call me Old Melanoma Head, if you ever watch it with John Candy. Anyway, so. By hiding it, they make it worse. You know what they say? It’s not the crime. It’s the cover up. Not calling this a crime per se.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:17:41] But I mean, it’s the idea that the cover up actually magnifies the thing you’re trying to cover up rather than covering it up. That’s where I think the unfortunate part here. This is the kind of data that ought to be as transparent and as crystal clear is absolutely possible. And it’s crazy making to me that I should be sitting here wondering or worrying, am I going to get censored for even daring to talk about this with you? Because there are people out there who believe that you shouldn’t question these things or the official Ministry of Truth hasn’t already pre-approved talking about this or it’s too early. You know, next week and talk about this, but not now. Not you. Right?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:18:19] I decry and deplore all of that, because the truth of the matter is, this is really important. We should have access to this data where there were adults for grown ups. We should be able to make our own minds up about this stuff. But that’s a little hinky right there. And so I am going to be talking about this more in part two, because it actually is hinkier than that. There’s stuff I absolutely can’t say out in public yet, but you want to see what I really think come by part two for this.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:18:46] All right. Is if that wasn’t weird enough, that’s plenty weird. Now, I went into the data myself. This is a document that I pulled out from that big Pfizer document dump that came out that found it pretty interesting because I’d been looking for this data for a while. And I was wondering, because it’s not in the paper itself, the New England Journal of Medicine Paper, it’s not in there to find out, like what kind of an antigenic response do people have? Remember, the idea was they put the jab in your arm, you wait a little while, you get a second jab, you wait a little while, and then you have this antibody response. You have this thing called an antibody titer, which is the amount circulating antibodies against the spike protein, hopefully preferentially against the receptor binding domain of that spike protein. Because if you have an antibody binding on to that receptor binding domain, that’s how it stops it from doing what it’s going to do, which is to bind into the ACE2 receptor or possibly other ones such as CD147 Neural Pill and one all the other receptors that this crazy from nature virus seems to have come pre, you know, out of the gate with a variety of keys to break into the human lock, in any rate.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:19:55] Here we go. They actually had assay data, which I said, Oh, good, I love data. I love data. Let’s take a look at this data together.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:20:03] So this is a series of tables here. And what we’re looking at here, this is page one. I’ve got the link down there. You can go to phmt.org. All that other stuff in old, bring it to this very document pretty long. And so we see here the vaccine candidate is this one here, which we’re all familiar with in this particular case here, they’re looking at an age group. They’ve clump together. Everybody who’s 18 to 55 years of age.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:20:31] Here, they’re only giving ten micrograms of the vaccine when normally what they would give as a first and second dose is 30 micrograms. So this is their dose ranging experiment. They’re trying to find out what’s the right dose here. Right. Very important in pharmaceutical research. What’s the right dose?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:20:48] Remember, Moderna went with 100 micrograms per dose. Pfizer ended up settling on 30 micrograms per dose. Hey, this is the kind of study where you figure it out. As well, we see here this big, long, crazy string of numbers. First, this is the this right here is the study number. So if you see C4591001, that is the prime study, the set of clinical trials that if you went to any trial site that was conducting the studies for Pfizer, they would have been conducting trials on studies C4591001. That’s the first set of numbers. Second, we got three sets of digits, numbers 10011001 and then 1004.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:21:30] Okay, that 1004, that’s a patient number each and 1001 is the site. So 1001 is the site. Remember, they went from 1001 to 1270. And what we’re looking at here is the results from a single patient who has been de-identified here for our purposes. But if the people who have access to this could find out the name behind who is 1004. So what did they do here? They gave this person Pre-Vaccination on the 4th of May in 2020 when they started this whole thing out. They then tested a variety of things out here, the MT50 and MT 90, the S1 binding IgG level. This is what they’re looking at. But the thing where I think we’re really supposed to care about is the receptor binding domain binding IGG level. These are in units per mil and a BLQ means it’s below the detection limit. So BLQ, you call that a zero anytime you see the build. So here’s how we read this. First they give the first dose and then on day seven after dose one in this case of ten micrograms, which would have been on the 11th of May because they gave the shot or they gave the dose. Yep. On May 4th.
[00:22:45] And they look out here and guess what, seven days after dose one, nothing detectable. Nothing detectable two BLQs in the S1 and the RBD binding. By 21 days here post shot one. Hey, we’ve got some detectable amounts. That’s 21 days after. So what do we got? 143.277. It’s a little specific for me in this case. And then they give shot two in seven days. After that, they get a reading of 8972. And then 14 days after shot two, hey, that’s already dropped off back to 3468. And then by a month, which we’d call that day 30, I guess, or 31, depending on what kind of month we’re talking about, we see that it’s gone back further to 2570. So what do we already see from this at the ten microgram level?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:23:39] And I’ll show you the 30 microgram data in just a second. What we see is that there’s not a lot detectable in the first shot. It jumps up a lot after the second shot, but that within a month after that second shot, it spikes and starts coming down pretty severely and significantly. We see that same behavior here, really nothing available here. We’ve got a pretty decent reading at day 21, got a much higher reading a day seven. We’ve got this huge reading a day 14 and it’s falls back by a month and we see that pattern over and over again.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:24:13] So this is just to show you how we would identify that again. So site 1001, that data we were just looking at came from site 1001. That was Mark Mulligan site, who’s the clinical investigator from New York, New York. So that’s how we would identify those numbers up there. Site 1001. That’s what’s in the data. All right. Now let’s look at a 30 microgram dose here. You can see this is the 30 microgram. Again, we’re in the 18 to 55 year old group. And so two things we’re going to notice.
[00:24:47] One, look at these numbers. Look at these numbers by the time. So pre VAX, we had a BLQ or a zero by day seven of shot one still zero by day 21, it’s managed to creep up to 3100 in this particular example with 30 micrograms. That’s higher than we saw before. So we’re now we’re seeing a dose response because here at ten micrograms, we were seeing numbers at day 21 of like 143. There’s a 1326, there’s 1649. But at 30 micrograms, we’re seeing numbers like 3150, 670, a little bit lower on that one, but generally higher. So that’s that. But look at dose two 57,805. However, you’ll notice that that again by a month has gone from a reading of 57,000 all the way back to a reading of 18,797n. So it’s a very high rapid spike in a peak, and that’s happening within just 30 days after the administration of the second dose.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:25:57] So first thing is, I’m going to note that rapid drop off in. The second thing is these are highly variable responses. So here’s patient 11 in this clinical zone. So that’s site 1001 at still site 1001, here’s patient 12. So two separate people. This person peaked out at 57,000, drop back to 18, seven, nine, seven. This person only made it to a high of 24,000 and then collapsed all the way back to a reading of 4872, which is 75% lower. So highly variable responses, 75% lower response in patient 12 versus patient 11. So we’re starting to get a sense that. Not all immune responses are created equal.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:26:45] Now, if you remember, like I do back at the time, the headlines and all of the communication around this was to suggest is if everybody responds equally, everybody responds well, and this is going to be a provide very durable, long lasting protection, as we now know. Not true. We should have seen this in the data. That’s in the data that was that’s already in the data. Like this is the stuff that was submitted way back when prior to the EUA the emergency use authorization approval. So the FDA had this information right here and I think it should have been part of full, informed consent. It ought have been. Part of the communication is to say we get really good, solid, robust immune responses and we see pretty rapid drop offs in this, which is going to lead to, you know, what we’re going to be monitoring next is how low does that number need to go in order for us to say it’s not being protective anymore?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:27:40] Now, we don’t have that data. They should have collected it. A well-designed trial would have answered that question. Is a reading of 4872? Is that a disaster or is that a totally awesome bonus reading? Because a reading of 18,797 is way off the charts. Awesome. I wish I could tell you I can’t because we don’t actually have that data here. But I can tell you we see a very rapid decline in the overall immune response, which really isn’t that much of a surprise, to be honest.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:28:08] Here we’re seeing the same sort of data exactly for the 65 to 85 year old group. Begs the question right away, if you’re paying attention here. The other age range went from 18 to 55. This age range goes from 65 to 85. We’re missing 55 to 65s. What happened to them? They’re just missing in this data. Don’t have it.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:28:28] The other thing I’m going to note is that the entire data set and listen, there may be other documents out there I don’t have access to that haven’t been released yet. But if this is the complete access document for the immune response, there are only 12 people in this particular cohort of 65 to 85 in the 30 microgram dose, just 12. So these 12 people presumably would have set the baseline for everybody in the world if this was what they were using to assess overall effectiveness. So antibodies would have been a proxy for effectiveness.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:29:07] Here’s the hypothesis. We give this substance. It causes an antigenic response. The body mounts a response creating antibodies. These antibodies are then protective of things we don’t want to have happen sickness, illness, transmission, death, things like that. Okay, so that’s the theory. But to connect that theory and make that circle whole and bring it all the way around, you would then show the relationship between the amount of circulating antibody and clinical outcome. We’d be able to connect those two dots because what’s the right number? Is it 30,000? Is it 3000? Is it 300? Who knows? I don’t know that yet. Based on not based on this.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:29:44] Notice here, though, that out of these 12 people and this is just one page I pulled right here, there is an 89% difference in 89% drop off from this person right here, which is patient 58 at site 1001 and patient 61. It’s site 1001, this one at the day 30 a month after the second dose had still a whopping 30,626 units of IgG circulating around. Next one patient 61, only had 3446. That is a huge variability between patients. Begs a few questions. Is this normal? Is that okay? Is anything happening differently between these two patients based on one had a massive immune response. One had a very muted immune response. We would want to know those sorts of things again. We don’t have access to any data that would tell us what happened. But what I would care about is what’s the clinical outcome of the difference between these two patients?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:30:46] I wish that was tracked. I wish we could, you know, sort of dig through that data and find out did did they have the same exact outcomes? Did one have a much better outcome? We don’t. We don’t know. Is it possible that the person with the high circulating IgG that their vaccine would have been much more durable lasted longer, longer protection compared to the person who had the much lower immune response? Probable. That’s a decent hypothesis, but we don’t have any data to suggest one way or the other, which is the case. So that’s kind of an interesting finding I’ll remember at the time. This is all the way is recent.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:31:22] These are all from like April and June of 2021. So coming up on a year ago, we’d already had about six months of Post-Vaccine experience at this point in time and were still writing headlines like these. Right? Pfizer coronavirus vaccine protection lasts at least six months. Okay, good. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines may offer years long protection. Scientists say that turned out not to be the case. So Sila Dito Rae at Forbes check different experts next time. In New York Times from a poor of writing Pfizer Moderna vaccines likely to produce long produce lasting immunity study finds. That was a really tiny study in Nature, and it turned out not to have found the right things, I guess, because obviously that didn’t happen.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:32:10] But we were still being treated to these sorts of headlines. And the reason why is because this basic data right here wasn’t widely shared. In fact, it was out of public view at that point in time. So no fault to the journalists who who didn’t know this or to the other scientists who are sort of scrabbling around in the dark with the rest of us because this data was not freely available, as far as I know. I didn’t know how to get my hands on it. Maybe others did. Could be. But you know what else we’d want? We don’t just want one month after dose. Do we want three months, four months, five months, six months? We want to be able to track the overall progression of these things. That was something that certainly could have been part of this because people were receiving doses of this five, six months prior to the submission of this data. So it would have been possible, at least even if it wasn’t statistically relevant, to have gathered that data, to have given us directional insights into how to respond and promote and deploy this particular set of vaccines, if that was the case. All right.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:33:16] Of things something one do I say a lot of questions about all of this. First, how did site 1231. Sign up so many. So quickly and so consistently. It’s really interesting. And assuming they did it right, how how sure can we be that all the records were properly recorded? Because that’s it. Garbage in, garbage out. You’re you’re only as good as the records you collect. Where was everybody in both onboarded properly. Were people excluded properly? Did we collect all the important information off of them? Yeah, I’d like to know the answer to that.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:33:52] Alternatively, how can we even be sure that they’re legitimate? Because when I see a straight line like that, my first thought is somebody better be looking at that good and hard because that’s an unusual sort of an output there. All right.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:34:08] And I’d really love to know this. How many of so there were there were 168 reported cases of COVID in the placebo group compared to, I think, whatever it was like eight or something over on the placebo side that gave the vaccine effectiveness of 95%. That’s where that came from. It’s a relative rate, right? 8 to 165 But my question is, how many of the reported hundred and 68 cases of COVID in the placebo group, how many of those came from site? One, two, three, one. If it was 10%, it was proportional. If it was a lot more than 10%. Now, I have another reason that I want to dig into that data. So I’d love to know, and I hope some of this data is coming out in the next batch of documents that get released, because these are the sorts of questions we would love to ask and answer, and there shouldn’t be any lack of transparency on this.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:34:56] In fact, we should be able to ask and answer and have these answered these questions right away. And I want to know as well, why weren’t the rapid drop offs in antibodies more widely reported on by the FDA at the time? I think that would have been an important communication for people to understand. You know, that wouldn’t have been a mystery to me looking at that drop off data that within a month after the second dose that we were seeing those steep drop offs, it would have been no mystery to me that we were going to be needing boosters in a relatively short period of time. Remember that, everybody by surprise. Right?
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:35:29] Originally, vaccines were going to give us herd immunity. They were going to completely prevent the spread and transmission of the virus. They were going to completely prevent people from being in the hospital at all with this. They were going to do a lot of things, none of which turned out to be true over time.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:35:45] I think that’s all in the data we just looked at. It’s there. And I think for people who are competent and qualified who are on these committees, they should have been looking at this stuff and they should have seen it and and communicated clearly and effectively because then people, doctors, patients, we can all begin to make better decisions and use true informed consent rather than just saying, trust us, that doesn’t work in this day and age. So those are my questions there.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:36:15] By the way, I’m going to go to Part 2 and I’m going to take this analysis even further. And I got to tell you, recording this today, of course, the markets are all falling apart and, you know, bad wipeouts in everything from Bitcoin to silver to stocks to you name it. And so I have a whole reason I think all of that’s happening. And so I’m going to be talking about all of that back at Peak Prosperity with members of my tribe.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:36:39] Again, the reason people subscribe to my site is to gain access to this kind of great information. That’s what I give to you. And what you give to me is the ability to keep doing this, which is to bring all of my attention to figure in this stuff out and then relaying it in ways that people can understand. Hopefully and hopefully through that, we reclaim our future. That’s my motto of my company. We’re creating a future worth inheriting.
Dr. Chris Martenson [00:37:06] How do we do that? By educating ourselves and others with in arming us with actionable information that will actually make a difference in our own futures. So that’s what we do, really. I would love to have you aboard. Got a great community of people. And so you get a ton of things if you come and join up at Peak Prosperity. But most importantly, you help pay it forward and support the work I do so that I can continue to uncover the B.S. and hopefully navigate a little bit closer to the truth, because we need that more than ever. Thank you very much for listening today. Let’s hope that this episode stays up on most, if not all, the social media channels and if not come by Peak Prosperity. That’s where you’ll find me. All right. Bye, everyone.
Part 2 - Premium Content
Premium members may access Part 2 of this content, Pfizer Fraud! Full Stop..
– Peak Prosperity –
Exclusive Member-Only Discounts
Peak Insiders receive exclusive discounts on endorsed products and services!
Enroll
