reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @AFLDSorg
reSee.it AI Summary
A peer-reviewed study reveals Pfizer's alleged omission of known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its FDA data filing in 2020. The company also reportedly concealed information that could have led to a denial of the EUA. Researchers found instances where Pfizer attributed vaccine-related deaths to other causes, undermining safety data. Profits seem to outweigh lives lost, as Pfizer made $58 billion in the first year. This prioritization of profit over our safety shouldn't come as a surprise.
@AFLDSorg - America's Frontline Doctors
A recently published peer-reviewed study suggests Pfizer excluded KNOWN deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020 and withheld information from the agency that could have resulted in a denial of the EUA. Additionally, researchers identified numerous instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes and undermined vaccine safety data. What’s a few lives lost in comparison to grossing $58 BILLION in the first year? Big Pharma puts profits over our safety and health. Are you surprised?
Video Transcript AI Summary
A recent study suggests that Pfizer may have excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020. The study also found that trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine experienced a significant increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls. This information was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating the vaccine for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine-associated deaths to other causes, undermining vaccine safety data. The data presented to the FDA prior to the authorization of Pfizer's vaccine did not include all the deaths that occurred during the trial. The speaker raises concerns about the prioritization of profit over lives and warns against trusting Big Pharma.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, freedom lovers. This is doctor Peterson Pierre with America's Frontline Doctors bringing you today's daily dose. A recently published peer reviewed study suggests Pfizer excluded known deaths in the vaccine arm of its clinical trial from its data filing with the FDA in 2020, and withheld information from the agency that could have resulted in a denial of the Emergency Use Authorization. Forensic analysis showed trial subjects vaccinated with Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine experienced a 3.7 times increase in cardiovascular deaths compared to placebo controls, and that this significant adverse event signal was not disclosed by Pfizer when the FDA was evaluating its vaccine scene for emergency use. Additionally, researchers identified numerous instances where Pfizer attributed potential vaccine associated deaths to other causes and undermine vaccine safety data for obvious reasons.
On December 10, 2020, one day prior to the FDA granting EUA for Pfizer's COVID nineteen vaccine, data was presented showing only 2 vaccine deaths during the clinical trial and 4 placebo deaths, which was used to support the claim that Pfizer's vaccine, if authorized, would save lives. However, Pfizer documents show 4 additional deaths in the vaccine arm of the clinical trial, and an additional death in the placebo arm, none of which were included in the FDA's presentation on the efficacy and safety of their shots. Report, the actual data would have negated any supposed benefit of those shots: safety and efficacy. Then again, what's a few lives lost when compared to grossing $58,000,000,000 in the 1st year? Beware of Big Pharma.
No. They absolutely do not care about you. Ladies and gentlemen, only the truth will set you free. Stay tuned for the next Daily Dose.
reSee.it AI Summary
A Michigan judge ruled against a drug manufacturer and hospital, stating they are not protected by the PREP Act. The case involves a man who suffered strokes and a leg amputation after receiving contaminated remdesivir. The lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of warranty. This highlights the devastating consequences of pharmaceutical companies' negligence and greed. Do they truly care about us?
@AFLDSorg - America's Frontline Doctors
In a ground-breaking decision, a Michigan judge ruled that a drug manufacturer and hospital are not protected by the PREP Act in the case of a man who experienced two strokes and a leg amputation after receiving remdesivir that was contaminated with glass particles. The lawsuit alleges breach of warranty, negligence and gross negligence. “Dan Nowacki’s case is a tragic example of the devastating consequences that can arise from sheer negligence and greed from pharmaceutical companies and the incompetence of Joseph Mercy Chelsea and not giving timely notice of a recalled drug.” Do you think Big Pharma cares about you?
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Michigan judge ruled that a drug manufacturer and hospital are not protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in a case where a man experienced strokes and a leg amputation after receiving contaminated Remdesivir. This is the first time a judge has ruled against the protection provided by the PREP Act. The lawsuit alleges breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence. The patient received 5 doses of Remdesivir, 2 of which were from contaminated lots. He experienced strokes and was later diagnosed with bruises and swelling. The drug manufacturer, Gilead, issued a voluntary recall of the contaminated lots after receiving customer complaints. The patient and his family were not notified until 4 months later. This case highlights the devastating consequences of negligence and greed in the pharmaceutical industry.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, freedom lovers. This is doctor Peterson Pierre with America's Frontline Doctors bringing you today's Daily Dose. In a groundbreaking decision, a Michigan judge ruled on August 8 that a drug manufacturer and hospital are not protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, in the case of a man who experienced 2 strokes and a leg amputation after receiving the COVID medication Remdesivir that was contaminated with glass particles, This is the first time a judge has ruled a drug manufacturer and hospital are not protected under the PREP Act, which provides immunity from lawsuits and liability protections under state and federal law concerning all claims for loss resulting from the administration of the covered countermeasure, the lawsuit alleges breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence, mister Nowakki, on November 10, 21, was admitted to St. Joseph Mercy Chelsea Hospital and diagnosed with COVID. During his stay, he received 5 doses of Remdesivir because as you all know by now, that was part of the hospital protocol.
At least 2 doses belong to contaminated lots. Days later, mister Noake experienced his first massive stroke. On November 24th, he was released to a skilled nursing facility and began developing bruises and swelling on his hands, face, and arms, he was readmitted to the hospital where his symptoms remained a mystery to physicians. He later experienced a 2nd stroke, sadly, on December 16th that left him bedridden and in need of permanent, published on December 3, 21, on the FDA's website, Gilead issued a voluntary recall of 2 lots of Viclury, also known as Remdesivir, after it received the customer complaint of glass particulates in the drug and affirmed through an investigation, the claim was true. Yet, mister Nowate and his we're not notified about the recall until the hospital sent the letter 4 months later in April 22 confirming that he had received at least 2 doses of Remdesivir from lots potentially contaminated with glass particles.
How long have the Gilead, the FDA, and the hospital known about this? And I quote, Dan Nowacki's case is a tragic example of the devastating consequences that can arise from sheer negligence and greed from pharmaceutical companies and the incompetence of Saint Joseph Mercy Chelsea in not giving timely notice of a recall drug. This is horrible. Two strokes, an amputation, bedridden, round the clock care for the rest of his life. Big Pharma doesn't care about you.
They never have and they never will. To them, we're just a number. We're just dollar signs. Ladies and gentlemen, only the truth will set you free. Stay tuned for the next Daily Dose.
reSee.it AI Summary
The FDA's smear campaign against ivermectin, labeling it as horse paste, faced backlash. Three doctors sued the FDA for professional harm. Now, the FDA acknowledges doctors' authority to prescribe ivermectin for COVID treatment. The vindicated doctors demand accountability from the FDA.
@AFLDSorg - America's Frontline Doctors
Remember when the FDA ran a smear campaign on ivermectin calling it horse paste? Three doctors brought a suit against the FDA for the professional harm this caused them. The FDA has changed its tune and now states - “The FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.” The doctors who advocated for ivermectin to treat COVID have finally been vindicated and now the FDA is trying to backpedal. They need to be held accountable.
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to a lawyer representing the FDA, doctors are now allowed to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19. This is a surprising development, as the FDA previously discouraged the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. The case was brought by three doctors who claimed that the FDA unlawfully interfered with their medical practice by discouraging the use of Ivermectin. The FDA stated that Ivermectin is not authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. However, the doctors feel vindicated by this recent decision and are calling for accountability from the FDA. Stay tuned for more updates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a shocking turn of events, according to a lawyer representing the FDA, Doctors are free to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID nineteen. Hey, freedom lovers. This is doctor Peterson Pierre with America's Frontline Doctors bringing you today's daily knows. Surprise, surprise. Wow.
This is amazing. Doctors can actually prescribe the horse pill to treat COVID. Here's a quote. The FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID. Interesting.
That's not what they were saying a few months ago. The government is defending the FDA's repeated exhortations to people to not take Ivermectin for COVID nineteen, including a post that you're all familiar with by this point. You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all.
Stop it. That was their post. The case was brought by 3 doctors who alleged the FDA unlawfully interfered with their practice of medicine with those statements. The fundamental issue in this case is straightforward. After the FDA approves the human drug for sale, does it then have the authority to interfere with how that drug is used within the doctor patient relationship?
The answer is no. In other statements, the FDA said that Ivermectin isn't authorized or approved to treat COVID nineteen and they had a question, Should I take Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID nineteen? Their answer was no. The plaintiffs are doctors Paul Merrick, Mary Bowden and Robert Abner. They say they were professionally harmed by the FDA statements, including being terminated over efforts to prescribe Ivermectin to patients.
Federal law enables the FDA to provide information such as reports of adverse reactions to drugs, but not medical advice. So the doctors who were advocating Ivermectin for COVID, have finally been v vindicated. And now the FDA is trying to back panel. Let's hold them accountable. Ladies and gentlemen, only the truth will set you free.
Stay tuned for the next Daily Dose.