Hey Pfizer, Why Did You HIDE the mRNA Influenza Vaccine Results for Over-65s?

Is it because you couldn't "adjust" the data enough to make your garbage drug look even remotely safe and effective?

It’s worse than we thought.

A week ago, I wrote about the farcical Pfizer paper recently published in the New World Order Journal of Medicine (aka NEJM). That paper laughably claimed the Pfizer Cartel’s new mRNA influenza ‘vaccine’ was more effective than the ineffective regular flu vaccine.

A look at the results showed no meaningful differences in “influenza-like illness” or “laboratory-confirmed influenza” between groups, yet a far higher rate of adverse effects in the mRNA group.

In other words, Pfizer’s new flu shot sucks.

And so does NEJM for publishing this garbage - their peer review process is evidently looser than an Only Fans creator.

But guess what?

There’s more.

A reader recently alerted me to the fact that Pfizer and NEJM hid the data for trial participants that were 65 and over.

This was news to me, because the NEJM paper made no mention whatsoever of such a demographic; it simply stated the trial participants were “healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years.”

This kind reader provided a link to a Substack article by Australian journalist Maryanne Demasi, which states “Pfizer’s mRNA flu shot failed in the over-65s, but the New England Journal of Medicine never published the data.”

I started reading Demasi’s article, but promptly ran into a wall. More precisely, a paywall. Not to worry, I quickly got my sleuth on and retrieved the damning data.

Because I’m feeling generous, and because my disgust at the hijos de putas at el cártel Pfizer knows no bounds, I’ll share what transpired with readers for free.

De nada.

The Retired Demographic Whose Data Was Conveniently Retired

Upon learning Pfizer deleted an entire demographic from its recent trial report, the A-Train went into express mode, toot-tooted like Thomas the Tank, and raced towards two key destinations.

One was the study protocol. I scanned through it, brows furrowed like Tucker Carlson trying to read the small print on a packet of vapes.

When the A-Train pulled up to page 59 of the protocol, his eyes popped wide.

His blood pressure began to rise, and instead of going “toot toot!”, he started spewing naughty words like an old Italian man trying to fix something that doesn’t want to be fixed.

“Mannaggia la miseria brutti sporchi bastardi maledetti figli di puttana disagraziati!”

In English: Pfizer are really horrible.

No, I didn’t forget punctuation above, this is how old Italian men really curse. Once they start swearing, commas cease to exist and they suddenly develop the Vo2max of young elite athletes, able to churn out profanity after profanity without needing to breathe. It’s quite a sight to behold.

But I digress.

Here’s the table on page 59 of the protocol that was published along with the main paper at NEJM, describing the study interventions.

For reasons unknown, the mRNA vaccine dose for those ≥65 has been redacted.

Got something to hide, Pfizer?

Silly question.

The next mention of participants ≥65 years is on page 97, where we learn the “primary efficacy objectives of this study are to evaluate the noninferiority and superiority” of Pfizer’s mRNA ‘vaccine’ “in each age stratum (participants 18 through 64 and ≥65 years of age) independently.”

So it was a primary objective of the study to see how well Pfizer’s new flu shot performed among the 18-64 and ≥65 demographics. Yet when it came time to publish the main paper in NEJM, the second demographic was simply erased from history.

But wait, it gets worse.

Next Stop, ClinicalTrials.gov, Toot Toot!

US Federal law requires Phase 2 and 3 drug intervention trials conducted in the US or US territories and/or for the purpose of gaining an NDA and/or involving a drug manufactured in the US for export to be registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

CT.gov can make for interesting reading because sometimes the posted results tell a different story to the ones eventually published in journals. Sometimes, the results are never published in journals because they are too embarrassing.

Of course, far fewer people read CT.gov than the journals. Which is great news for drug companies with something to hide.

The CT.gov page for the Pfizer mRNA flu shot trial can be found here.

Of participants in the 18-64 category, the NEJM paper states “9225 [were] assigned to the modRNA group and 9251 assigned to the control group”.

The CT.gov information also shows 9,251 starters for the control group which wasn’t really a control group because they also took a vaccine, so they were in fact a comparator drug group.

But hey, what’s a little obfuscative language between friends?

However, it shows 9,247 starters in the mRNA group, which means by the time the NEJM paper was published some 22 participants in that group had vanished. Was their data conveniently omitted because it didn’t show what Pfizer wanted it to show?

The unexplained disappearance of 22 participants - enough to sway the results given the pathetically miniscule differences Pfizer seized upon to claim efficacy for their new mRNA mierda - is already sketchy.

But omitting the data for 27,270 participants is truly astounding.

That’s right ladies, gentlemen, they/thems, furries, people identifying as asexual zucchinis and anyone else I’ve left out:

By pretending the ≥65 cohort never existed, the hijos de putas at el cártel Pfizer omitted the data for a whopping 13,635 folks taking their mRNA porqueria, and 13,635 folks injected with regular anti-flu goo!

Not only is this repugnant behavior by Pfizer, it also confirms NEJM is a complete joke.

The job of the peer-reviewers at this so-called ‘prestigious’ journal is to, well, review the bloody paper.

That means cross-checking stuff. Like comparing the protocol with the published paper, and when you notice that almost thirty thousand participants have mysteriously been deleted from the latter, pull out a red marker and write across the submitted paper:

“Che cazzo fai?!? Over 27,000 participants missing?!? Where the [BLEEP] did they all go??? You didn’t think I’d notice?? What do you think I am, a [BLEEP] cuccio? Mannaggia la miseria brutti sporchi bastardi maledetti figli di puttana disagraziati!”

But the peer reviewers at NEJM clearly aren’t feisty old Italian blokes. Nope, they probably belong to some other demographic, like maybe an apron-wearing cult that meets at lodges and is controlled by a powerful cabal of deviants who occasionally remind those under their control that curiosity killed the whistleblower and that handsome financial remuneration and suppression of embarrassing personal information comes the way of those who do as they are told.

But I digress.

As you might imagine, when a criminally dishonest drug company suddenly ‘forgets’ about 27,000+ clinical trial participants, there’s got to be a reason.

When the Data Doesn’t Support Your Drug, Delete It

The data show that among those ≥65, during the first 7 days the mRNA group suffered a higher rate of local and systemic adverse events. But when making results public, Pfizer and their government buddies simply pretend the first 14 days didn’t happen; all the unfavorable outcomes and adverse events of that period simply get sucked into a time vortex, never to be reported on again.

So let’s move onto the AE results for the first 4 weeks.

They show that 8.7% of the mRNA group suffered adverse events, compared to 5.9% in the regular flu goo group.

The corresponding figures for serious adverse events were 2.3% and 2.2%, respectively.

As for ‘efficacy’, 0.34% of the mRNA group and and 0.36% of the regular flu vax group got “laboratory-confirmed influenza” (defined as influenza infection confirmed through RT-PCR or culture at the central laboratory) from day 15 onwards. This was lab-confirmed influenza associated with an “influenza-like illness” (ILI), the ILI being diagnosed according to Pfizer’s criteria.

In other words, there was no difference between groups.

The CT.gov report then shows the percentage of participants in each group who had lab-confirmed influenza associated with influenza-like illness, when the ILI was diagnosed according to CDC (0.36% vs 0.30%) and WHO (0.23% vs 0.22%) guidelines.

So in the ≥65 participants, the results showed the mRNA concoction was no better than a regular (and ineffective) influenza vaccine, yet produced a higher rate of adverse events.

That’s what is known as a FAIL. A drug that doesn’t work yet produces higher rates of side effects is a stinker. A flop.

Well done, NEJM for being either hopelessly incompetent or complicit and allowing the deceitful, incompletely-reported Pfizer trial into print.

It’s becoming a habit, isn’t it?

Remember that absurd slop you published in January 2020 announcing the alleged isolation of ‘Sars-Cov-2’, the new Woohoo virus that was allegedly racing around the world killing people left, right and centre, but in reality did not exist?

You published a paper that made zero sense, and for which not one of the authors was prepared to list themselves as a contact to field inquiries, which is standard practice.

When I twice contacted three (3) of those Chinese researchers to ask about the long list of anomalies in their paper, I was greeted by a Great Wall of Silence.

And you call yourself a peer-reviewed journal!

As for Pfizer, it should’ve been disbanded long ago. This corporate criminal has been wantonly breaking the law ever since the 1950s, racking up violation after violation.

As I’ve written previously, if Pfizer was named after an Italian family instead of a German immigrant, and had employees with names like Big Paulie, Little Angie and Fat Tony, it would be labelled a criminal organization and prosecuted under the RICO Act. Its members would be arrested and given lengthy prison sentences.

But because Pfizer is a key cog in the globalist wheel, and a huge contributor to the inaugurations of Bubba/Bibi-blowing US presidents, it keeps getting token slaps on the wrist and is allowed to carry on as usual.