Am I missing something? There's a Pfizer ‘vaccine’, ones from Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, yes? There's one of each; that's what we've been told. In which case, why is the FDA sending two letters, one to Pfizer and one to BioNTech? And why does the Pfizer letter deal with the continuation of the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), whereas the BioNTech one speaks to approving a vaccine (COMIRNATY) for use within certain limits?
The sensible conclusion would be that there are two ‘vaccines’ connected with Pfizer, not one. It seems that the two partner companies have a patent on different products. So, have we been getting a two for one deal under the existing EUA? Are they just lumped together when our elders and betters describe them, so that us simpletons that make up the great unwashed aren't confused? And, if that is the case, how can one be approved and yet the other one can't? What makes one better than the other, more 'safe' and 'effective' to use the current jargon, or is there another explanation, instead? Because two letters to different companies saying different things isn't the narrative that we are being fed.
In an alternative universe, where rules that were introduced in order to protect the public from Big Pharma's malfeasance were actually enforced, it would not be necessary to forensically examine FDA letters. But, as we now know, we cannot rely on the authorities' probity. We never could; we just didn't realize it. So, twenty three pages later, things become a little clearer.
There are indeed two ‘vaccines’ associated with Pfizer, but only one of them has been in circulation so far. According to the FDA, while the ingredients are different, they're not different enough to make any difference; allegedly. This rather begs the question – if there is nothing distinguishing one from the other, why are they applying for FDA approval for one ‘vaccine’ and not the other? And why is it that the version that is being approved hasn't actually been used on anybody yet? Because it clearly hasn't. There have been no trials of COMIRNATY yet, which is why the FDA has instructed them to conduct eleven different types of trials on specific age ranges and at risk groups. These are to take place after approval has been granted for adults in general.
A variation of this question presents itself. If the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ and COMIRNATY are so similar as to be interchangeable (another claim made in the Pfizer letter), why isn't it the existing Pfizer shot that is getting approved? Is it because it's impossible to change the label on the bottle? Is there some arcane piece of guidance that prohibits a vaccine issued under an EUA from transforming into an approved vaccine whilst already in circulation? Given their blatant disregard for any other impediment when it suits, we are now supposed to believe that the FDA is being super scrupulous for once?
Or is it possible that the FDA, Pfizer/BioNTech and the state are only satisfied with Olympic level gaslighting? Because they are insisting that existing supplies of the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ are exhausted before COMIRNATY makes its debut:
“COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is now licensed for individuals 16 years of age and older. There remains, however, a significant amount of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that was manufactured and labeled in accordance with this emergency use authorization. This authorization thus remains in place with respect to that product for the previously-authorized indication and uses...”(1)
Of course. It makes complete sense. It's merely coincidental that, by adopting this procedure, it can be claimed that the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ is approved when it explicitly isn't. And it's also just chance that the Establishment can ramp up their coercion to more extreme levels with more mandates than you can shake a stick at, while Pfizer still benefits from the liability exemption that comes with a ‘vaccine’ used under an EUA, which otherwise disappears once a vaccine is approved. This way Pfizer can continue to evade responsibility for all the injuries caused by their ‘vaccine’. That's a sweet deal.
In other news, there is a casual admission that the VAERS system is inadequate, as is the other network of databases that the FDA is required to maintain. Yes, there is more than one system that is used to assess adverse events.
We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system tat FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.(2)
So, the VAERS system and the other adverse reporting systems that the FDA is obliged to maintain aren't fit for purpose and the way we learn this is via an obscure reference in a letter virtually no-one will read. And the solution isn't to fix it, but to rely on the drug company to do the reporting for them? What could possibly go wrong with the arrangement? How is it that the FDA can admit that their systems are insufficient to monitor the incidence of adverse events such as myocarditis, whilst at the same time claiming that those same systems are able to be relied upon when granting an approval for a vaccine?
There are some other gems that are revealed by the letters. Apparently, the evidence submitted in the approval application by BioNTech was so compelling that the previously inviolable practice of convening an advisory committee that might also cast its eye over the evidence provided, was now surplus to requirements. If you recall, the ‘vaccine’ companies (including Pfizer) fatally compromised any long term studies of possible adverse events by giving the ‘vaccines’ to the placebo control groups at the end of their original clinical trials; another formerly forbidden practice. Now another safeguard has been removed and the only party, other than Pfizer and BioNTech, to have seen the evidence prior to approval, has been the FDA.
Furthermore, we can shed some light on the chances of booster shot approval also receiving the green light, as it appears that a third shot is already being administered to immuno-compromised transplant patients. If they are getting an additional jab, then so will we. As an aside, and given what we know of the ‘vaccine's’ action on the immune system, given a third injection to transplant patients sets a new standard of recklessness.
There is, additionally, reference to ongoing clinical trials (in the Pfizer letter), in addition to the de facto Stage III clinical trials being inflicted on the population at large. This additional trial has a cohort of over 2,000 12-15 year olds, presumably children of parents who have life membership of the Hard of Thinking Club. It's inevitable that these children will experience the same widespread problems with myocarditis that have been recorded in the wider population. However, a controlled study run by the drug company itself will afford more opportunity to manipulate the data prior to future FDA applications and the almost inevitable clinical trial report finding no provable connection between ‘vaccines’ and heart disease will give apologists another document to brandish at the 'hesitant'.
The letter to Pfizer also reminds them of their solemn responsibility to forward any reports of adverse events to the VAERS system; you know, the system that the FDA has acknowledged is not working properly. I'd be very interested to know how diligent the likes of Pfizer have been so far. When the fox is in charge of the hen house, things do not usually end well.
The net result of these shenanigans, obfuscations and outright lies is that no account is taken of the more than 13,000 deaths and over 500,000 adverse events (in the USA alone) already attributed to the ‘vaccines’ – the FDA just baldly states that there is no evidence of harm. Once again, we see the shop worn tactic of simply ignoring evidence that undermines the narrative.
Looking at both letters and combining the information contained within each in an effort at gaining a fuller picture, the following hypotheses emerge. The approved ‘vaccine’ won't be available anytime soon; it may not even be mass manufactured in the near future. It's possible that at least some of the numerous trials that are required (and which run until the end of 2026) will take place before anyone in the general population is actually jabbed.
As for 'booster shots'; we don't yet know whether these are going to be Pfizer's or BioNTech – as we didn't know there was a distinction until these letters appeared – so we also don't know whether their contents mimic the ‘vaccine’ that is still only authorised for emergency use or whether they are second cousins to the approved one. However, it doesn't seem likely that the booster will be approved whilst the ‘vaccine’ that's still being taken doesn't enjoy the same status. It also seems unlikely that the drug companies will view the act of giving up liability cover as a sound commercial decision.
Not withstanding the almost limitless capacity of Big Media to lie to us, this episode perfectly encapsulates the way the Establishment does it. It is a perfect storm of blatant, instantly provable mendacity, which has gone uncorrected by every player in the entire sorry saga, whether they are the President of the United States, the CEO of Pfizer or the FDA themselves.
It's not as if it can possibly be explained by saying that it was a careless reading of the relevant letter, even if said letters are written in particularly opaque language, the better to confuse. For a start, only the approval letter has achieved media prominence. The one to Pfizer has been ignored entirely, thus impeding any attempt to provide a full explanation. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
For weeks, the media has told us that FDA approval for the ‘vaccine’ was just around the corner, probably in September (I guess the Afghanistan debacle has required a compression of the timetable, so that the media has something positive to talk about) even though, until recently, the process was supposed to take until at least 2023, which was still about six years less than it should be. Did the FDA issue a statement dampening down speculation? Stating that it wouldn’t be issue an approval at all? No, they did not.
And how did the story gain traction in the first place? Why, if 2023 was supposed to be the earliest date for ‘vaccine’ approval, were we suddenly asked to believe that it would be mid 2021 instead, a mere eight months after the EUA was authorised? Leaving aside the obvious yearning for a proper stick with which to beat the deplorable unvaxxed, on what other basis did the media report this nonsense? They must have received a tip from somebody official; they then ran with the story, received zero push-back and then ran with it some more.
It almost certainly has to do with the 40% of Americans who have still not been ‘vaccinated’; it's definitely not to do with the safety and efficacy of the ‘vaccine’. The whole affair has all the hallmarks of crude propaganda; crude, because all you have to do is read the letters in order to realize that the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ that will be forced upon the unwilling is still only authorised for emergency use, not fully approved.
Which leads to another interesting question. If the mainstream narrative can be so easily undermined by the mere act of reading a published letter, does this stunt demonstrate Establishment over-confidence or desperation? Are they banking on being able to ignore any difficult questions, aided by their buddies at CNN and MSNBC, firm in the belief that the letters are sufficiently complex that the truth of the matter cannot be divined? Or, even if the truth is recognized, that it won't see the light of day and their primary objective, the initial headlines, will have successfully gulled the unwary?
The other alternative is that they are running scared or throwing a Hail Mary in one last, desperate attempt to coerce the population into getting inoculated. I'd say the answer is much more likely to be the former explanation. The game isn't far enough advanced for them to be desperate, even if the narrative that it is the ‘unvaccinated’ who are driving the infections is not borne out by the facts.
I think there is a medium term need to reduce the size of the unvaxxed control group in order that they might properly obscure the truth about ‘vaccine’ failure, but they know they have a grace period of at least nine months in which to accomplish that. After all, that particular script is written. More variants, more demonization of the 'hesitant', another 'surge', partial lock-down, boosters, flu jabs, a rise in severe illness and death in the new year and a full lock-down again. They may not even have to use the climate change excuse this winter.
In amongst all that background noise, they should be able to hide the truth of the matter (already apparent if you care to look), which is that it is the ‘vaccinated’ who are most at risk. However, whatever coronavirus is circulating this winter will be subject to evolutionary selection pressure due to the ‘vaccination’ campaign and that may also lead to problems for those among the ‘unvaccinated’ who have not yet gained natural immunity.
What we are seeing is confirmation that it is no longer necessary to operate covertly to escape detection, provided you belong to the right team. It's possible to publish your plans and the evidence that refutes your justification for making them and yet still get away with it.
Ultimately, anybody who believes that their status as one of the ‘vaccinated’ and the privileges that go with it (formerly known as rights) will represent anything other than a temporary reprieve, needs to do a little research. Still got the ability to co-mingle, go to the pub, take a flight? For how long? The ‘vaccinated’ are merely occupying a different staging post to the deplorables, but the intended destination is the same for both.
And that's not a theory – they've told us as much if we'd cared listen, but too many people have been too busy being frightened and delusional. In reality, how can we trust any entity that has told us that getting ‘vaccinated’ will enable us to protect ourselves from infection, prevent transmission to others, will allow us to stop wearing masks? None of these things are true and, what's more, there was never any possibility that they would be.
Viruses follow the same general pattern, obey the same evolutionary rules. There have been no surprises this time around, other than the way the the Establishment has used us as a tool in driving mutations of whatever mild, seasonal coronavirus is out there, by locking us down and de-training our immune systems in the process. What's more, every subsequent lock-down will have the same effect; it's self-perpetuating.
Remember the rumblings about the effectiveness of lock-downs in reducing CO2 emissions? Expect to hear more talk of that once the panic porn of variants grows wearisome. Does anybody think that being ‘vaccinated’ will make them an exception to that? Sure, there's a possibility that, in the short term, states will wield it as a further cudgel, beating the 'hesitant' by telling them that it's them that will have to stay home to save the world. But, before long, it will apply to everyone.
And all the 'vaccinated' will have done, by believing people who have continually lied to them, is ensure that they will be less well equipped to deal with viral infection than those who have natural immunity. Not only that, but they'll be queuing up for booster shots every time Big Pharma decides that it needs to replenish its coffers and every shot will increase the volume of toxic spike protein in their bodies. Still, in for a penny, in for a pound.
That scenario is what this latest suite of lies is designed to bring about. In one sense, if one were minded to give the FDA some latitude, one might think that it doesn't really matter whether the 'wrong' ‘vaccine’ has been approved. That's if we were to believe them when they say that the imaginary ‘vaccine’ and the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ are virtually indistinguishable. And some will say that the FDA has demonstrated transparency by listing the ingredients, so that we can better make our own judgement.
To which I would reply that an organisation that ignores 13,000 deaths and which cannot maintain a database that might enable it to protect the public (were it so minded, which it clearly isn't) isn't worthy of trust. Any judgement that they make can only be accepted if we have access to all the evidence that they used to arrive at it. There is compelling evidence that their list of ingredients is incomplete, for instance. And how do we know that the two ‘vaccines’ are virtual carbon copies?
It's possible that the reasons given for approving COMINARTY only are valid and that the confusion is merely the result of an understandable desire to use up all the ‘vaccine’ available. But it doesn't ring true. The ability to maintain liability cover is a much more compelling motive. Plus, there is a possibility that the two ‘vaccines’ are not virtually the same at all and, even if they are, what is it that distinguishes one from the other and how do we know that it is safe for use in humans if it has never been tested on anyone?
Additionally, how can the FDA approve a ‘vaccine’ and then require clinical trials for various groups (such as children), whilst granting an EUA to its Pfizer twin allowing those same groups to be jabbed in the interim? It doesn't make sense if the two ‘vaccines’ are the same, as both should be either safe or not. Officialdom in general and, in this case, the FDA in particular have forfeited our trust long ago and the way in which this approval has been communicated merely adds to the suspicion that all is not as it seems. But in amongst all the static, we can sure of one thing. The Pfizer ‘vaccine’ has not been approved.
Citations
(1) https://www.fda.gov/media/144412/download
(2) https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download