“ an untested vax”
After all the testing conducted by so many regulatory agencies around the world, you continue to make such an obviously and demonstrably false statement.
It highlights how divorced from objective reality, your conclusions are.
****************************************************************************************
What a crock. The current phase of testing for the mRNA injections isn’t over until the end of the year or early next year-depending on which company’s product is used.
In addition, there have been zero human trials of longer term impacts regarding side effects which may not show up until 3-10 years down the road.
So it is NOT fully tested and that’s a fact.
In addition, there have been zero human trials of longer term impacts regarding side effects which may not show up until 3-10 years down the road.
So it is NOT fully tested and that’s a fact.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also, those reviewing the limited data released by the 'vax' companies (honest ones release all data promptly) thus far, there are 'problems'.
For example, double-blind trials are the industry standard, but these 'vaccines' had such a stupidly high rate of adverse events (those which they will report are swelling, fever, body aches etc.) that the trial participants were unblinded and most knew whether they got the vax and responded accordingly. As one researche suggested, they would be less likely to complain because they want the 'vaccine' to succeed because people need it etc. Many unknowns about how unblinded particpants and researches were impacted.
The trials themselves were a joke, actually. Too small, too short, lacked rigor, unblinded. They FDA applications say they have data gaps including data to indicate whether the 'vaccines' halt transmission or infection (no data), co morbidity testing etc. These are trials in name only to 'get by' because their buddies/partners in the FDA were going to pass them no matter what.
The data is a..ahem...problem. They won't release all of it...still...but researchers working with the scraps of data grudgingly released are 'concerned' that efficacy is nowhere near that which was reported. The first to say so was the head of a British medical researcher - he crunched the numbers and was 'disappointed' because they didn't match the advertising.
The fact that these trials used the PCR to determine efficacy proves that they are invalid. They knowingly used an invalid test, which tells you it's likely they faked their data.
In the case of Pfizer, 'concern' was raised by the thousands of sick vaccinated people those running the trial ignored.
Using an invalid PCR test, people who had symptoms often tested 'negative' on the invalid PCR test. So what did Pfizer do to figure this out? Nothing. It didn't investigate and it labled those people 'suspected Covid' and DID NOT COUNT THEM. So, if those people actually had Covid, efficacy could be as low as 19% and the FDA has 50% limit below which it does not approve. Here's a quote from the Peter Doshi article I linked.
“Suspected covid-19”
"All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators."
This is a lethal scam rubberstamped by formerly legit 'institutions' that were corrupted by our enemies starting, at the very least, around 1992 when regulations changed to put the FDA in bed with pharma companies and the CDC went into the vaccine and drug business(patents) and established their own 501c3 to launder funds from Bill Gates, George Soros, Pfizer, Moderna, etc. etc. etc.
These 'vaccines' are worse than 'untestest'. They are weaponized. I used to think that all those animal trials for this 'vaccine technology' failed since 2005. I now think the 'vaccines' were being weaponized with taxpayer funds. We're how far into the 'plandemic' and still using a fake PCR 'test' that lets them create whatever numbers they need?
Untested means not tested.
At all.
There have been, and continue to be, mountains of tests for these vaccines. They have repeatedly passed testing, all around the World.
When you have to keep moving the goalposts, and changing the definition of common words, it is a sure sign that you are not telling the simple truth.