12% efficacy of vaccine according to Pfizer data

originally posted by: Aguythatflys
maybe they were talking about this?

www.cnbc.com...

but left out the kids part?

Nice work. That is likely where the 12% number came from. Sounds like CNBC is where the argument should be if there is one.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would imagine personally finding the FOIA file would be extremely hard and then breaking down the 80k pages worth of data into something readable would be another task.

I've been trying to find the FOIA file for the past hour now using deep web searches but only find "factcheck" sites claiming to be false. So who knows.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Was the source you were given the Sonia Elijah substack?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well last I saw a lot of the trial data was fishy as hell. Most of the sketchy stuff was in places like south america and they were signing up insanely record numbers of participants daily...even over the weekends when there was no staff actually present. Each participant requires a mountain of paperwork to be done and from most professional opinions would be impossible to do without a massive staff just to file it.

originally posted by: just4fun

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sources in my signature detail efficacy and effectiveness of the vax.

It's approximately 85 percent two weeks after the second shot.

All lies and Bull #####

The sources in the signature are rubbish as well.

a reply to: network dude

That isn't where it comes from. I have seen a 'source' for it, and the dataset is from the trials back in 2020. But then I was told that's not the source and it's a reputable journal, but they wouldn't show me the journal.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Was the source you were given the Sonia Elijah substack?

BINGO! That's the source one person gave me. After I proved how bad that source was, someone else said the most reputable medical journal in the world proved the efficacy is 12% ... but won't show me where they saw it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I still cannot find a single semi reputable source that even shows the data. Its all just "it's fake"

My question is. If the data showed it to be 95% efficacy, then why isnt that very same FOIA being touted as the " haha told you so" by the media? Why the hell is it so hard to find...

a reply to: Aguythatflys
Are these what you are looking for?
Pfizer’s Documents

a reply to: daskakik

Looks to be a start but trying to find that FOIA out of everything here looks like its going to be a pain since its all random numbers. Anyone know what day it was released? I'm totally down to dig if it can be found.

a reply to: Aguythatflys

The data is available because Sonia Elijah did an analysis on it.

a reply to: Aguythatflys
According to the court order (link opens a pdf) it was May 2.

The FDA will produce 80,000 pages on or before May 2, June 1, and July 1, 2022; 70,000 pages on or before August 1, 2022; and then 55,000 pages on or before the first business day of each month thereafter.

ETA: This link will take you to a page on the phmpt.org site where you can download all the May 2 docs in a single zip file.

a reply to: daskakik

Aint nobody got time for that. At least I don't. I just want to put the 12% efficacy to bed, either by proving it's true, or fake news. Surprising that NONE of the people who use it in every thread have come here to comment, why is that?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I hear you.

I understand that the premise of the thread is to have someone just link that elusive super legit source, which seems to be non-existent, but since someone was looking for the files I thought I'd link to them.

I started with 125742_S1_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3-adverse-events.pdf "because of course"

on page 180/338 and the range of adverse effects so far are quite staggering. Everything from gingivitis to genital herpes lol.

God this is gona take while lol.

125742_S1_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3-synopsis.pdf pretty much just says that

"In both younger and older participants, two doses of BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 induced
strong SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific and S protein-specific T-cell responses. RBD- and S protein-specific CD4+ T-cell responses were induced by BNT162b1 in 97.5% of participants and by BNT162b2 in 100% of participants. RBD- and S protein-specific CD8+ T-cell
responses were induced by BNT162b1 in 95.5% of participants and by BNT162b2 in 96.6%
of participants. The magnitude of the T-cell responses did not show clear dose dependency."

This pdf just states that yes it produces a T-cell response.

125742_S1_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3-lab-measurements.pdf is the blood work of said subjects with some adverse effects/ effects that have happened after the shot was given. may/may not be related. On a side note lol one of these "subjects" was juiced up.

125742_S1_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3-compliance.pdf Is the meds the subjects were taking after the shot.

125742_S1_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3-report-body.pdf Finally! This is where you'll find your answer. My brain hurts....... I don't have the mental ability to go through this today but i'll try tomorrow.

Ok so i've spent the last two days with this and IMO there's no way anyone can come up with a number because there looks to be alot of data "missing". If someone else wants to give it a shot please do so.

originally posted by: just4fun

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sources in my signature detail efficacy and effectiveness of the vax.

It's approximately 85 percent two weeks after the second shot.

All lies and Bull #####

And I suppose that you can prove that statement without referring to a bitchute video by a chiropractor?