"Analysis: 100% of Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots are From Only 5% of the Manufacturer Lots According to VAERS,"
Medical Kidnap, November 1, 2021.
https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/11/01/analysis-100-of-deaths-following-covid-19-shots-are-from-only-5-of-the-manufacturer-lots-according-to-vaers/
Quotations:
"We do know, for example, that certain documents that Pfizer supplied to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for their COVID-19 shots showed that in some of the test batches they only had 55% of the mRNA intact."
"This data alone shows that there have been 106 times as many adverse reactions, 189 times as many deaths, and 195 times as many hospitalisations due to the Pfizer Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined."
"This data alone shows that there have been 118 times as many adverse reactions, 174 times as many deaths, and 140 times as many hospitalisations due to the Moderna Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined."
"Meaning the 2,828 reported deaths were associated with just 4% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine."
"The data clearly shows that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign has been significantly more harmful and deadly than the influenza vaccination campaign."
"Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?
Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?
Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?"
@eintaluj said"Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?
"Analysis: 100% of Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots are From Only 5% of the Manufacturer Lots According to VAERS,"
Medical Kidnap, November 1, 2021.
https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/11/01/analysis-100-of-deaths-following-covid-19-shots-are-from-only-5-of-the-manufacturer-lots-according-to-vaers/
Quotations:
"We do know, for example, that certain documents that Pfize ...[text shortened]... the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?"
Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?
Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?"
These all seem like legitimate questions. My humble opinion is perhaps these vaccines were rushed through the production and approval process without sufficient testing. Most vaccines take years to develop and be approved. I would add however that I believe it's highly unlikely these companies would deliberately produce a dangerous vaccine, as they would only be hurting themselves.
@mchill
"I would add however that I believe it's highly unlikely these companies would deliberately produce a dangerous vaccine, as they would only be hurting themselves."
No, there are no such things as "dangerous vaccine" or "non-dangerous vaccine". All vaccines and medicaments are dangerous to some degree: with some probability, some adverse effects of some seriousness appear. In effect, what the producers are doing is the cost/gain analysis containing several parts and factors.
I also think the hypothesis that they deliberately produced an inferior vaccine for mass distribution is unlikely. However, it is still likely that they deliberately produced some small quantities of elite vaccines for the elite, but because of time problems and the costs, the vaccine produced for the masses was of inferior quality. That is, they deliberately did NOT make a quality vaccine for the masses because of time and costs.
However, Pfizer has paid a two billion dollars fine for distributing illegal medicaments. This information is on the website of the US Justice Department.
What is true in your argument: If the vaccine producer fails too much, then serious court cases will finish the company financially or ruin its reputation so that no one will buy their medicaments anymore. Say, if 100 000 people in New York will die because of the vaccine, then normally, the company should finally finish its existence.
@eintaluj saidhttps://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2R00KP
"Analysis: 100% of Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots are From Only 5% of the Manufacturer Lots According to VAERS,"
Medical Kidnap, November 1, 2021.
https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/11/01/analysis-100-of-deaths-following-covid-19-shots-are-from-only-5-of-the-manufacturer-lots-according-to-vaers/
Quotations:
"We do know, for example, that certain documents that Pfize ...[text shortened]... the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?"
VAERS also suggest 150.000 people have died from the vaccine in the US.
Which is debunked garbage.
@shavixmir saidVAERS did not say "150 000" in THAT analysis.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2R00KP
VAERS also suggest 150.000 people have died from the vaccine in the US.
Which is debunked garbage.
What is your logic applied to yourself? - In the RedHotPawn, you have many times presented false assertions, therefore, everything you are saying here is garbage.
What is your logic applied to Pfizer? - Pfizer has paid a 2 billion fine for selling illegal and harmful or not approved drugs, therefore, Pfizer's vaccine against coronavirus is a garbage.
@eintaluj saidAnyone reading your post in good faith might deduce that Pfizer was fined $2 Billion for criminal activity surrounding their Covid-19 vaccine, but you are throwing merde about whistle-blower led prosecution that resolved around 2009 over drugs that Pfizer pushed for off-label use. P was criminal with B 16 years ago dies not necessarily translate as P is criminal with C.
@mchill
"I would add however that I believe it's highly unlikely these companies would deliberately produce a dangerous vaccine, as they would only be hurting themselves."
No, there are no such things as "dangerous vaccine" or "non-dangerous vaccine". All vaccines and medicaments are dangerous to some degree: with some probability, some adverse effects of some seriousn ...[text shortened]... ork will die because of the vaccine, then normally, the company should finally finish its existence.
That would be like blaming one US Administration for the sins of another. You may feel a catharsis for making a blanket conspiratorial claim, but it fails the fairness test.
@kmax87 saidPfizer was NOT fined because of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and I did NOT try to make such an impression. The present forum on Red Hot Pawn does not allow to open the links (Youtube links seems to be an exception), therefore, I am not populating it with the links. The reference to the Justice Department website was given, however, everyone interested in the details can check themselves. One can also ask me to provide some links - I can provide also some articles about it. I regard your's and Šavikšmir's comments as malicious and distorting the issue. You both are trying to suppress the discussion even before it has started.
Anyone reading your post in good faith might deduce that Pfizer was fined $2 Billion for criminal activity surrounding their Covid-19 vaccine, but you are throwing merde about whistle-blower led prosecution that resolved around 2009 over drugs that Pfizer pushed for off-label use. P was criminal with B 16 years ago dies not necessarily translate as P is criminal with C.
T ...[text shortened]... You may feel a catharsis for making a blanket conspiratorial claim, but it fails the fairness test.
@eintaluj saidCopy and paste the links into your browser. You can even open a new tab to do it.
Pfizer was NOT fined because of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and I did NOT try to make such an impression. The present forum on Red Hot Pawn does not allow to open the links (Youtube links seems to be an exception), therefore, I am not populating it with the links. The reference to the Justice Department website was given, however, everyone interested in the details can check th ...[text shortened]... and distorting the issue. You both are trying to suppress the discussion even before it has started.
It's not rocket science.
@eintaluj saidWhat the hell are you jibbering on about.
Pfizer was NOT fined because of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and I did NOT try to make such an impression. The present forum on Red Hot Pawn does not allow to open the links (Youtube links seems to be an exception), therefore, I am not populating it with the links. The reference to the Justice Department website was given, however, everyone interested in the details can check th ...[text shortened]... and distorting the issue. You both are trying to suppress the discussion even before it has started.
You’re like a retard on a broken loop.
@kmax87 saidBesides, it is nonsense in the other way too. You took my sentence out of the context and even did not quote it exactly. What I did say indeed:
Anyone reading your post in good faith might deduce that Pfizer was fined $2 Billion for criminal activity surrounding their Covid-19 vaccine, but you are throwing merde about whistle-blower led prosecution that resolved around 2009 over drugs that Pfizer pushed for off-label use. P was criminal with B 16 years ago dies not necessarily translate as P is criminal with C.
T ...[text shortened]... You may feel a catharsis for making a blanket conspiratorial claim, but it fails the fairness test.
"However, Pfizer has paid a two billion dollars fine for distributing illegal medicaments. This information is on the website of the US Justice Department."
This "however" is after the discussion of the vaccines. And this "however" refers to medicaments, not to vaccines specifically. Thus, your "anyone" means indeed "anyone with weak logic and not reading the sentence in the context". Don't attribute your own mistakes to everyone.
@eintaluj saidSorry I did not immediately pick up on the fact that your "however" signalled reference to an event 16 years earlier in the company's history. What was your intention in linking that earlier instance of corporate malfeasance?
Besides, it is nonsense in the other way too. You took my sentence out of the context and even did not quote it exactly. What I did say indeed:
"However, Pfizer has paid a two billion dollars fine for distributing illegal medicaments. This information is on the website of the US Justice Department."
This "however" is after the discussion of the vaccines. And this "how ...[text shortened]... k logic and not reading the sentence in the context". Don't attribute your own mistakes to everyone.
@kmax87 saidIt seems to me that you have not read my original post and the comment to what I replied to.
Sorry I did not immediately pick up on the fact that your "however" signalled reference to an event 16 years earlier in the company's history. What was your intention in linking that earlier instance of corporate malfeasance?
The context was as follows.
Someone commented that the article shared made one exaggerated hypothesis, when interpreting the statistical analysis: that Pfizer has perhaps intentionally spread low-quality vaccines to a large number of people. One also explained that it is harmful to the company to sell such vaccines that kill people.
In turn, I agreed that such a hypothesis of the malevolence of the company seems implausible. However, I wanted to specify that the harmfulness to the company of selling low-quality vaccines is not an absolute argument: one has to evaluate how harmful to the company such a practice really is. It is important, how big is the profit of the company, how strong is the pressure to produce the vaccine quickly, and how serious is the punishment for selling low-quality medicaments. In that context, I mentioned that Pfizer has paid two billion dollars fee to get free of criminal accusations for selling low-quality medicaments. To my knowledge, that huge fee is the largest ever paid. The number two billion dollars is meant to give a hint that the stakes are very high and probably that company is able to survive and gain a profit even if the fees for misconduct are so high as to kill some smaller enterprises.
In no way have I argued that from this court case it follows that Pfizer's vaccine is of low quality or that Pfizer has bad intentions. However, it still follows that we should not trust too much the economic incentives to produce and sell high-quality medicaments.
@eintaluj saidSo you basically cast shade on Pfizer to help your argument and you wondered aloud without actually accusing them of anything. Right!
It seems to me that you have not read my original post and the comment to what I replied to.
The context was as follows.
Someone commented that the article shared made one exaggerated hypothesis, when interpreting the statistical analysis: that Pfizer has perhaps intentionally spread low-quality vaccines to a large number of people. One also explained that it is harmfu ...[text shortened]... t we should not trust too much the economic incentives to produce and sell high-quality medicaments.