PCR test fraud & how Pfizer used this sensitive 'over-cycled' test with a 97% false-positive rate to defraud the US & the world, to work with FDA to get EUA based on 8 vaccine and 162 placebo events

What evidence does Jaafar and Bullard give us to devastate this PCR fraud these? What did we know yet disregard? What evidence did the CDC and FDA pretend not to exist on PCR false-positives?

That Pfizer went to FDA with 170 events in total, 162 placebo control group and 8 in the intervention group, to get a FDA authorized EUA for a safety untested vaccine for hundreds of millions if not billions globally, that we know today is ineffective and harmful, deadly…who do we jail first? That really is the question…who do we jail first? That they would unblind the studies knowing we would never then be able to get the efficacy/effectiveness and harms data ‘in the future’, at any time as now the placebo got the intervention. These really are academic scientific frauds.

What did Jaafar and Bullard warn us about as to the fraud over-cycled PCR test? Why has Pfizer not explained the specifics on the PCR testing in their trial?

1)Jaafar: Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates

“we have performed 250,566 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR for 179,151 patients, of whom 13 161 (7.3%) tested positive. Up to the end of May, 3790 of these samples, reported as positive on nasopharyngeal samples, were inoculated and managed for culture as previously described [8]. Of these 3790 inoculated samples, 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates could be obtained after the first inoculation or up to 2 blind subcultures. The correlation between the scanner values and the positivity of the culture allows us to observe that the image obtained with 10 times more isolates than in our preliminary work (1941 vs 129) does not change significantly (Figure 1).

It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.”

Do you get that? only 3% cultures are positive with Ct =35 (97% not, or more likely were not) and the US, Canada, UK et al. all cycled at 40 cycles and above for 2020 and 2021, and I and others have warned that this was done to terrorize the people and force lockdowns and masking in wait of the fraud vaccine…

2) Bullard: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples

“However, in an article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Bullard et al reported that patients could not be contagious with Ct >25 as the virus is not detected in culture above this value”

So we knew that using cycle count threshold cut offs of anything over 25 was a failure and basically denoted positive when the test was actually only picking up viral dust and non-culturable virus that was non-infectious…you were NOT positive…we argued day one you do not shut down society due to non-contagious virus, it is harmful…and this is why they did not make the PCR cycle data available to you when they said you were positive, it would have shown you were not infectious as the higher the cycle, the less contagious.

So, they used the fraud over-cycled PCR to manipulate to get the event numbers in their study…I make this claim and they have not shown us anything to tell us this is not what they did…see also Sonia (on PCR tests)

Pfizer’s document to FDA for EUA was even more duplicitous and shocking and we have gone over this but again,

Here is the key submission document:

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting December 10, 2020

see Table 6 on page 24, you see 8 events in treatment arm and 162 in placebo (non-vaccine arm) for a relative risk reduction of 95%:

but we back calculated the over 3,000 participants Pfizer excluded (see page 42 Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting December 10, 2020), yet these were suspected but not confirmed….with back calculations (1594 vaccine group and 1816 placebo group), I found that the 95% RR dropped to about 20%. Not even arriving at the 50% cut point threshold needed and certainly not the 95% they used to get EUA. In other words, they would have never gotten the EUA.

“As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR confirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for seriousness….Among 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.”

Did they really exclude these cases? It appears so and this is very questionable and raises serious red flags for with them back-calculated, the 95% efficacy would not have been reached. Pfizer never explained this exclusion adequately and this is a red flag. Why were they excluded?

Do you understand the extend of the fraud we are facing? That we would grant EUA on 170 events? 170? to vaccinate billions, without the proper duration of follow-up to examine safety signals?

The continued use of these ineffective and unsafe vaccines for COVID is reckless and dangerous and pushing these sub-optimal non-neutralizing vaccines in mass vaccination will only drive the emergence of infectious variants (selection pressure) where one can be possibly lethal to humanity.