Report 12: Secret Documents: How Pfizer Covered Up a Flood of Adverse Events
I am a civil trial and appellate attorney in New Mexico, with experience litigating complex matters. My prior essay for DailyClout.io regarding the Pfizer WarRoom Document Review — for which I volunteer as one of 250 attorneys — argued that the documents clearly show evidence of fraud on the part of Pfizer. The latest tranche of documents, released on April 1, 2022, show an equally dramatic revelation: Pfizer knew by February of 2021, that there were had been ‘a large number of adverse events’ in the three months prior.
Pfizer also realized that these adverse events were so abundant — and they expected so many more in the months to come — that they advised the FDA
that they would hire 2400 additional staffers to deal with the paperwork and data processing they expected due to the anticipated volume of adverse events!
I reviewed the April 1, 2022, tranche of Pfizer documents the FDA produced pursuant to a federal court order. A document produced on November 17, 2021, was also produced as “reissued” on April 1, 2022. At first glance they appear identical, but they are not. Importantly, information redacted (deleted) from the document produced in the March 2022 production, was included in the April 1, 2022, production. This information is quite telling and some conclusions can be drawn.
The document produced on November 17, 2021, is titled “5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf” (November 17, 2021 (984 KB)). That same document in the April 1, 2022, production is titled “reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf”. (April 1, 2022 (958 KB)). The word “reissue” is absent in the November 2021 version. That made me curious, so I did a comparison of the two documents. Here is what one will find on page 6. (The “Bates” number in both documents in the bottom, right-hand corner is “FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000059.”)
The lengthy paragraph on page 6 of the November 2021 document concerns adverse events reports received by Pfizer as of February 28, 2021. The third sentence of that paragraph in both documents reads: “Due to the large number of spontaneous adverse events reports received for the product [i.e., BNT162b2], the MAH [Marketing Authorization Holder] has prioritized the processing of serious cases, in order to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.”
This paragraph ends: “Pfizer has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports.” Think about that sentence.
“This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full-time employees (FTEs). More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021 [emphasis added].”
Also on page 6, under the heading “3. RESULTS”, at “3.1.1 General Overview”, Pfizer discloses in the document produced on April 1, 2022, what it redacted from the same document produced in November of 2021. What Pfizer had produced in April 2022 to take the place of the redacted document in November 2021 document was the fact that for the three-month period beginning December 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, Pfizer shipped “approximately 126,212,580 [emphasis added] doses of [the FDA emergency use authorized] BNT162b2″ worldwide.
The 126,212,580 figure is redacted in the document produced in November 2021 but is included in the “reissue” document of April 1, 2022.
Likewise, the new, full-time 600 and 1,800 employees, amounting to a total of 2,400 full-time employees, hired to deal with all the anticipated adverse events, are included in the document produced on April 1, 2022, but had been redacted from the same document the FDA had produced in November of 2021. Why the foregoing data were redacted, but then disclosed, we do not know, yet. We do know that the redacted information is damning. What did we learn by comparing the two documents?
First, between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021, a period of three months, “a large number of spontaneous adverse events reports” were made to Pfizer regarding the administration to humans of the BNT162b2 “vaccine” for which the FDA had provided emergency use authorization (EUA).
Second, by February 28, 2021, (the date of the document) Pfizer knew that by June of 2021 it would hire at least an additional 2,400 full-time employees to process the adverse events reports Pfizer was receiving. (Appendix 1 to these documents is a list of 1,290 adverse events of special interest (AESI) received in connection with the BNT162b2 “product.” Based upon my research to date, I have found no evidence that these AESI were disclosed publicly prior to November of 2021.)
Lastly, and incredibly, despite having this information, on August 23, 2021, the FDA granted continued EUA status for the BNT162b2 “vaccine” and also approved Bio-N-Tech/Pfizer’s product known as COMIRNATY. Notably, according to the FDA, both the EUA BNT162b2 and the “approved” COMIRNATY are identical and interchangeable products. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that COMIRNATY also causes “a large number of spontaneous adverse events,” including the adverse events and AESI listed in Appendix 1 to these documents.
In sum, Pfizer did not only apparently commit fraud, but they also compounded the fraud by hiring 2,400 full-time employees to deal with the flood of adverse events that they expected – and yet they told no one about this publicly.
I will continue to issue analyses of these historic documents.
9 replies added
Thank you so much for all your hard work on this
Hi Mr. Looney. Thank you for your work!
In this article, you mention that the postmarketing doc was released in the March 2022 batch, but on the phmpt.org search, it says that the document was produced on Nov 17, 2021. Would you mind helping me clarify if perhaps I’m missing something?
I’m writing a Substack that will include this and I’d like to clear it up. Thank you!
Hey Etana. It was released in November but this new one has parts now unredacted that were previously redacted.
Hi Mr. Looney. I published my post about your finding on my Substack, if you’d like to take a look.
If you see notice any errors, I’m open to feedback!
Dear Mr. Looney,
At the weblink
you can find the number of doses of BNT162b2 that were administered to individuals aged 12 plus by Feb 28, 2021. The number of individual doses administered in all US jurisdictions was 84,028,549 by Feb 28, 2021.
Any chance that this uptick in adverse events during this window of time could be tied to specific batches that might be bad or were not handled as required in transit prior to administration?
Thanks for your work on this-
How come no one has been able to find and talk to any of these many onboarded people? It would seem that at least one of 2400 people would be aware enough to be willing to talk about their reality?
One point re the last paragraph, where it states, “Notably, according to the FDA, both the EUA BNT162b2 and the “approved” COMIRNATY are identical and interchangeable products. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that COMIRNATY also causes “a large number of spontaneous adverse events,” including the adverse events and AESI listed in Appendix 1 to these documents.” This is in the FDA approval letter for Comirnaty product: ““The licensed vaccine [Comirnaty] has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.” Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA LOA reissued August 23 2021 (fda.gov), p.2, footnote 8. My point being there may be an ingredient difference between the Bio-N-tech product and the Comirnaty product. . :
If the products are distinct, they are different and, therefore NOT interchangeable. That means the COVID 19 (fake virus!) “vaccine was NOT approved – an issue that came up when it happened but the whole thing was so confusing that it died down.