Horowitz: Pfizer vaccine injury data ordered released by judge shows shocking risk level



Any time one even mentions a story, data, or even VAERS numbers showing serious injury or death resulting from the vaccine, the bio-medical state lobby close their ears and shout while their censors in Big Tech label it as misinformation. But now we have it from the horse’s mouth – Pfizer’s own vaccine injury data – a shocking amount of death and injury that is likely under-reported. This means that the FDA knew from day one these vaccines were unsafe to the point that they would typically be denied authorization, and certainly not funded, mandated, and marketed with a budget and energy that have never been placed behind a product since the dawn of time.

Pursuant to an agreement based on a FOIA lawsuit, the FDA has agreed to release 500 pages of vaccine data documents per month. There is a total of 329,000 pages of documents containing the information the agency relied upon to approve the shots, but they have asked a court to give them 55 years to release them. Last week, the FDA released the first five documents to a group of scientists suing for the information, and one of them reveals Pfizer’s data on adverse events through Feb. 28. The 38-page document details the cumulative post-authorization safety data reported to Pfizer’s system during the early days of the mass vaccination campaign.

In total, Pfizer discloses the existence of 42,086 adverse event case reports containing 158,893 total events, including 1,227 deaths. 25,957 of the events were classified as “Nervous system disorders.” So for those who think that somehow VAERS is not accurate or is overreporting deaths, these are numbers straight from the horse’s mouth just through February. Remember, it is extremely hard to trace many serious events back to the vaccine, including death, especially if there is a few weeks’ lag time, and most especially with people already in advanced age. So these are just the ones that were “submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.”

Full stop right there. Under any other circumstance, such a vaccine would have been removed from the market right away, certainly not fully endorsed, marketed, funded, and mandated by government. It was so bad that Pfizer reveals, “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritized the processing of serious cases” and also had to hire more full-time employees to handle the reporting. How was it ethical for the FDA to withhold this information from the public, and how can it ever be ethical to mandate such a shot, even if one believes that, in general, a government could wield such authority? This is especially true now that we know its efficacy is minimal at best and downright enhances the virus at worst.

Imagine if there were a third-party audit of vaccine adverse events by someone other than the manufacturer. Let’s not forget that according to the lawyer for the de Garay family, whose 12-year-old daughter suffered a debilitating injury from the shot during the actual clinical trial, Pfizer and the feds tried to do everything possible to deny that the vaccine caused the injury. This is for someone in the supposedly carefully monitored trial and this is for a 12-year-old. You can imagine how many seniors got the shots and were injured or died, yet the families never reported it because they chalked it up to end-of-life health decline or morbidity.

The time has come for Republican governors to stop denying the problems with these shots and pick up the slack of regulatory oversight where the feds have engaged in criminal negligence. It is impossible to deny the safety signals and refrain from taking investigative and regulatory actions to provide state residents with informed consent. The safety signals for blood disorders and cardiac issues alone are enormous. Consider the fact that researchers from the University of Hong Kong bluntly concluded, “There is a significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose.” Now remember that this is the only shot even approved for teenagers, while Moderna, which has a stronger dose, is banned in many European and Asian countries for those under 30.

At some point the concerning safety signals have to matter. One of the most troubling signals is the inordinate number of professional athletes around the world collapsing suddenly shortly after having gotten the shots. Israeli researchers found a list of 183 professional athletes or coaches who died suddenly this year, well beyond the normal baseline over the past 20 years. Most were very young, and 80 of them collapsed on the field. Most of the reported causes were heart-related, including myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, or cardiac arrest, as well as blood clotting.

Again, if we are seeing this magnitude of disturbing safety signals and this degree of short-term deaths and injuries, what does that portend for long-term safety for millions of people? It’s one thing to not study long-term effects of a vaccine because of the imminence of a pandemic, and then we see no short-term safety problems. But now that we are experiencing an unprecedented number of short-term injuries, how can we assume this is safe long-term?

Republican leaders are happy that the courts are enjoining Biden’s federal mandate. This way they can wash their hands of having to fight against it politically in a way that will actually endure. The reality is that most large corporations will still impose the mandates because the government has removed the ultimate market-based check and balance against dangerous products by exempting the manufacturers from any liability, including for willful misconduct. This is why every Republican governor and legislature has an obligation to impose workplace injury liability on any employer that mandates the shots. They can’t have it both ways. If it’s truly safe and effective, they should have no problem applying the same standard of workplace injury liability we apply to all other workplace requirements imposed by employers.

When state legislatures convene in January, they have an obligation to pick up the slack on oversight of these shots. If they fail to do so, our Constitution will be replaced with the balance sheets of Pfizer.

Horowitz: Why is Pfizer – the leakiest vaccine – enjoying the most approval from government?



August was a remarkable month. In the face of all the bad reactions to the vaccines, we learned that after all that pain, the vaccines aren't even lasting. Concurrently, cases and deaths are skyrocketing more than before anyone had a vaccine. Yet precisely at the time when the shots are wearing off, the FDA not only quasi-approved the vaccine, but picked the leakiest of all to greenlight and also authorized emergency use of a third shot ... of the same failed substance.

Even the most unflinching supporters of the COVID vaccines who deny any risks whatsoever should be asking the following salient question: Why is it the Pfizer vaccine that is getting the first full approval, the first booster approval, and the first emergency use for children, given that Moderna clearly works better?

Any intellectually honest person at this point would have to admit that Moderna has won the battle of vaccine champions vs. Pfizer. According to a Mayo Clinic study, as of July, Americans were twice as likely to experience breakthrough infections after having had the Pfizer shot compared to Moderna. "In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer)," the researchers said.

Overall, the Mayo Clinic researchers pegged Pfizer's efficacy at 42% vs. 76% for Moderna.

Israel, a country where almost the entire adult population got the Pfizer shot, found just 39% efficacy in the Pfizer shot from data that is now two months old. And evidence is mounting that the efficacy wanes with every increasing month. Given these numbers, and the known risks of leaky viruses creating stronger, more durable viral immune escape, isn't anyone interested in researching whether Pfizer's leakiness is the possible culprit for both the U.S. and Israel seemingly experiencing a worse surge than ever before?

The fact that Pfizer is leaking with antibodies waning much quicker is not surprising. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Moderna recipients had twice the antibody levels of those who received the Pfizer shots after a similar follow-up period after the second shot.

"Pfizer is the lowest dose of mRNA, at 30 micrograms per shot, and it's therefore obvious that Pfizer has the lowest estimated vaccine efficacy," said Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist who has raised serious questions about the mass vaccination strategy.

McCollough said that the differential vaccine efficacy is not merely about academic intrigue but has real-life consequences. "A common question I'm asked by my patients is which vaccine is the best and how can it be safely given," he said. Based on the government's stronger and quicker approval of Pfizer, the public perception is that Pfizer is the best bet, and Pfizer is winning the market share and almost completely owns the teen demographic.

However, how can "the experts" ask Americans now to take a risk on a booster from Pfizer, in itself an indictment of Pfizer's existing efficacy, with the same failed formula without giving proper informed consent about the efficacy of each vaccine? Israeli researchers came out with a new study concluding that "elderly individuals (60+) who received their second dose (of Pfizer) in March 2021 were 1.6 (CI: [1.3, 2]) times more protected against infection and 1.7 (CI: [1.0, 2.7]) times more protected against severe COVID-19 compared to those who received their second dose in January 2021." They found similar results across all age groups; it's just that most of the seniors were vaccinated earlier, so they are experiencing waning immunity quicker.

There are so many unanswered questions based on the existing science. Why should Pfizer be the first to be rewarded with a third shot if its product failed quicker than anyone else's? And how will another dose of the same formula with an ever-evolving virus work even as long as last time? Shouldn't we first study why the vaccine is so leaky and whether the leakiness is the culprit for this bizarre viral enhancement we seem to be experiencing, which is so unnatural? Typically, a virus that is more transmissible becomes less virulent, not more virulent.

Here's another question: With the current vaccines leaking to various degrees, why does the FDA continue to slow-walk Novavax, which is closer to a traditional vaccine? With a rapidly deteriorating situation in America, wouldn't we be desperate for a new solution rather than doubling down on the most failed vaccine?

By now, the wheels in your brain should begin to churn and come to the realization that, to borrow a line from Orwell, not all animals are created equal. Clearly, some companies have more pull than others. Nobody can deny that the tendentious treatment of Pfizer in the face of contrary scientific evidence demonstrates that politics and money supersede science. Pfizer is an exponentially larger company than Moderna, with an entrenched lobbying arm dating back decades. So just maybe – maybe – our entire approach to this virus, from the use of remdesivir and vaccines over early, cheap therapeutics to the failed capacity restrictions and masking are also rooted in political science rather than natural science?