Will the real Frank Waxman please stand up?

Always read the fine print:

Pfizer Disclosure Notice
The information contained in this release is as of March 14, 2023. Pfizer assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements contained in this release as the result of new information or future events or developments.

This release contains forward-looking information about Pfizer’s efforts to combat COVID-19, the collaboration between BioNTech and Pfizer to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine program, and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, also known as COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) (BNT162b2) (including an EUA of a booster (fourth) dose of the companies’ Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age (also referred to as under 5 years), planned regulatory submissions, qualitative assessments of available data, potential benefits, expectations for clinical trials, potential regulatory submissions, the anticipated timing of data readouts, regulatory submissions, regulatory approvals or authorizations and anticipated manufacturing, distribution and supply) involving substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Risks and uncertainties include, among other things, the uncertainties inherent in research and development, including the ability to meet anticipated clinical endpoints, commencement and/or completion dates for clinical trials, regulatory submission dates, regulatory approval dates and/or launch dates, as well as risks associated with preclinical and clinical data (including Phase 1/2/3 or Phase 4 data), including the data discussed in this release for BNT162b2, any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates or any other vaccine candidate in the BNT162 program in any of our studies in pediatrics, adolescents, or adults or real world evidence, including the possibility of unfavorable new preclinical, clinical or safety data and further analyses of existing preclinical, clinical or safety data, including the risk that additional data against newer Omicron sublineages could differ from the data discussed in this release; the ability to produce comparable clinical or other results, including the rate of vaccine effectiveness and safety and tolerability profile observed to date, in additional analyses of the Phase 3 trial and additional studies, in real world data studies or in larger, more diverse populations following commercialization; the ability of BNT162b2, any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates or any future vaccine to prevent COVID-19 caused by emerging virus variants; the risk that more widespread use of the vaccine will lead to new information about efficacy, safety, or other developments, including the risk of additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious; the risk that preclinical and clinical trial data are subject to differing interpretations and assessments, including during the peer review/publication process, in the scientific community generally, and by regulatory authorities; whether and when additional data from the BNT162 mRNA vaccine program will be published in scientific journal publications and, if so, when and with what modifications and interpretations; whether regulatory authorities will be satisfied with the design of and results from these and any future preclinical and clinical studies; whether and when submissions to request emergency use or conditional marketing authorizations for BNT162b2 in additional populations, for a potential booster dose for BNT162b2, any monovalent or bivalent vaccine candidates or any potential future vaccines (including potential future annual boosters or re-vaccinations), and/or other biologics license and/or emergency use authorization applications or amendments to any such applications may be filed in particular jurisdictions for BNT162b2, any monovalent or bivalent vaccine candidates or any other potential vaccines that may arise from the BNT162 program, including a potential variant-based, higher dose, or bivalent vaccine, and if obtained, whether or when such emergency use authorizations or licenses will expire or terminate; whether and when any applications that may be pending or filed for BNT162b2 (including any requested amendments to the emergency use or conditional marketing authorizations), any monovalent, bivalent or variant-adapted vaccine candidates, or other vaccines that may result from the BNT162 program may be approved by particular regulatory authorities, which will depend on myriad factors, including making a determination as to whether the vaccine’s benefits outweigh its known risks and determination of the vaccine’s efficacy and, if approved, whether it will be commercially successful; decisions by regulatory authorities impacting labeling or marketing, manufacturing processes, safety and/or other matters that could affect the availability or commercial potential of a vaccine, including the authorization or approval of products or therapies developed by other companies; disruptions in the relationships between us and our collaboration partners, clinical trial sites or third-party suppliers; the risk that demand for any products may be reduced, no longer exist or not meet expectations, which may lead to excess inventory on-hand and/or in the channel or reduced revenues; the risk that other companies produce superior or competitive products; risks related to the availability of raw materials to manufacture or test a vaccine; challenges related to our vaccine’s formulation, dosing schedule and attendant storage, distribution and administration requirements, including risks related to storage and handling after delivery by Pfizer; the risk that we may not be able to successfully develop other vaccine formulations, booster doses or potential future annual boosters or re-vaccinations or new variant-based or next generation vaccines; the risk that we may not be able to maintain manufacturing capacity or access to logistics or supply channels commensurate with global demand for our vaccines, which would negatively impact our ability to supply our vaccines within the projected time periods; whether and when additional supply agreements will be reached or existing agreements will be completed or re-negotiated; uncertainties regarding the ability to obtain recommendations from vaccine advisory or technical committees and other public health authorities and uncertainties regarding the commercial impact of any such recommendations; challenges related to public vaccine confidence or awareness; uncertainties regarding the impact of COVID-19 on Pfizer’s business, operations and financial results; and competitive developments.

A further description of risks and uncertainties can be found in Pfizer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 and in its subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, including in the sections thereof captioned “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Information and Factors That May Affect Future Results”, as well as in its subsequent reports on Form 8-K, all of which are filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov and www.pfizer.com.

10 myths told by COVID experts – now debunked (nypost.com)

" In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:

Much of the time, they were wrong.

To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time.

That’s understandable. You go with the data you have.

No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives in the face of new evidence.

When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR.

In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession.

What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.

Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer should have been “we’re not sure.”

Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.

Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong.

At minimum, the CDC should come clean and the FDA should add a warning label to COVID vaccines, clearly stating what is now known.

A mea culpa by those who led us astray would be a first step to rebuilding trust."

America’s COVID Response Was Based on Lies | Opinion (newsweek.com)

Here are the 10 biggest falsehoods—known for years to be false, not recently learned or proven to be so—promoted by America’s public health leaders, elected and unelected officials, and now-discredited academics:

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than the flu by several orders of magnitude.

2. Everyone is at significant risk to die from this virus.

3. No one has any immunological protection, because this virus is completely new.

4. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread.

5. Locking down—closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel—will stop or eliminate the virus.

6. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.

7. The virus is known to be naturally occurring, and claiming it originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory.

8. Teachers are at especially high risk.

9. COVID vaccines stop the spread of the infection.

10. Immune protection only comes from a vaccine

Its Time To Stop the Shots - Full Video - #StopTheShots (rumble.com)

Canadians Injured by mRNA Vaccines Speak Out – Canadian Covid Care Alliance

How Fauci Fooled America | Opinion (newsweek.com)

" Collateral public health damage. A fundamental public health principle is that health is multidimensional; the control of a single infectious disease is not synonymous with health. As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few. Americans will live with—and die from—this collateral damage for many years to come.

In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech. Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world. Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci.

The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health."

" Americans who got their COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine are not fully protected against getting sick, according to a new report.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report that said the updated boosters were just 48% effective at preventing symptomatic infection from the XBB variant of the disease.

The World Health Organization has a 50% threshold to deem a vaccine effective — meaning the bivalent shots fall just below their benchmark when targeting the dominant XBB strain."

It’s insane that colleges still mandate vaccines (nypost.com)

" But bureaucracy lags far behind. It operates at its own speed, regardless of common sense, critical thinking or harmful impact. College vaccine mandates are a glaring example of this phenomenon; after all, vaccine mandates are simply not effective in protecting the community. How could they be if they don’t prevent transmission? Nonetheless, they remain stubbornly the norm in New York and elsewhere.

One of the most outrageous college mandates can be found on SUNY campuses. Shockingly, it only applies to students: Older, more vulnerable faculty and staff are not required to take vaccines, making it one of the most egregious and legally questionable mandates still standing.

SUNY’s policy affects over a million students, who are at little risk of serious COVID-19 complications. And like all medical interventions, the vaccines aren’t without risk.

So why are we still doing this? In 2021, a SUNY student succumbed to vaccine-related myocarditis after he was forced to take the vaccine to stay enrolled. Tragedies like this must not go ignored and should have been enough to call mandates into question long ago.

Risk of myocarditis in young men and menstrual cycle irregularities in women are recognized side effects of the vaccines that weren’t fully known when they were first made available. What else will we discover in hindsight, and who will be liable?"

Reproductive Health - OpenVAERS




Natural immunity found to be as effective as COVID vaccine — 3 years after mandates: Lancet study

Natural immunity as effective as COVID vax— years after mandates (nypost.com)

"Years after the rollout of vaccine mandates that led to the firing of thousands of workers, the Lancet has reported that natural immunity is just as effective as two doses of the Moderna or Pfizer shots in preventing both reinfection and serious illness from COVID-19.

The findings, which were published in the February edition of the prestigious medical journal, were based on a review of 65 separate studies from 19 different countries.

“Although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines,” the report declared.

The research was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with senior study author, Dr. Christopher Murray hailing the findings.

“This is really good news, in the sense that protection against severe disease and death after infection is really quite sustained at 10 months,” said Murray in a statement. The study “supports the idea that those with a documented infection should be treated similarly to those who have been fully vaccinated with high-quality vaccines,” according to researchers.

However, many who lost jobs, fell out with friends or were derided as anti-vaxxers simply for expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of the shots, are fuming about the findings.

Thousands took to social media to rage over the report, with one writing: ” ‘The science’ now shows we ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right all along.”

Added value of this study

“This study provides a comprehensive review of studies that have estimated the protection from past COVID-19 infection by variant and time since infection. The result shows high levels of protection against re-infection for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants for all major outcomes. Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high. Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech), as documented by Nassereldine and colleagues, in our companion study. To our knowledge, this is the first review to comprehensively assess natural immunity protection against COVID-19 re-infection by variant (primary infection and re-infection) and to evaluate waning immunity with time since primary infection”

Excess deaths, correlation study - YouTube

In my view, the theory in the following video best explains the real-world data observed after covid mRNA vaccination. If Frank Waxman wants to debunk something, he should debunk this:

A credible explanation behind vaccine adverse events, Marc Girardot - YouTube