Pfizer 6-Month Vaccine "data" Is In...

The six-month safety and efficacy data is in for the Pfizer vax. While we all await the larger readout from the full length of the phase III trials (due in 2023) this interim result is a much-needed peek at the trials.

The good news is that the vaccine seems to reduce ‘serious Covid’ as well as SARS2 infection. The bad news is that we can’t tell from the data at what rate the vaccinated are still getting and replicating the virus. The good news is that neither the vaccinated nor the unvaccinated were dying of Covid. Or it could be said they were dying at ~ the same rate. Out of 44,000+ total test subjects, just one vaccinated and two unvaccinated died of Covid. Overall 15 vaccinated and 14 unvaccinated people died…so almost exactly the same number in each arm.

Troublingly, the study failed to tell us much if anything about the disposition of some 262 vaccinated people who had “serious” adverse events. We don’t know how many recovered, how many hadn’t yet, or what the issues were. This is fully 0.5% above baseline, so it means roughly 0.5% of all vaccinated people are going to have a serious adverse event (SAE). Compare that to the 0.13% that had serious Covid and suddenly things get a little bit murkier. We cannot say which is a better or worse public health outcome; 0.5% with vaccine SAE’s or 0.13% with serious Covid.

The study didn’t provide nearly enough information to make such a determination. Which is a shame because good data goes a long way towards relieving fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

Want to hear Chris’s unfiltered thoughts? Click here for Part 2!




This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

I posted this a couple of days ago. If you’re vaccinated AND you get covid, you have a 19% chance of DYING. If you’re unvaccinated, and get covid, you have a 1.6% chance of dying. This is a frightening development!

If you're vaccinated AND you get covid, you have a 19% chance of DYING. If you're unvaccinated, and get covid, you have a 1.6% chance of dying.
I must have missed that data. Can you please re-provide? The IFR of Covid is way under 1.6% so I am wondering what the definitions are that you are using. I could imagine those might bear out if we're talking about hospitalizations with Covid. But your chance of ending up in the hospital is much small if you're vaccinated in the first place, which means we'd have to population adjust/normalize everything to understand the total risk.

Chris, this was in the Pfizer data. 80 vaxxed people got covid, 15 (or is it 14) died. 800 non vaxxed people got covid, 14 (or 15) died. Sand_puppy presented the detail, and I confirmed it in the data.
This really disturbed me. Maybe it’s a statistical anomaly, but I fear it’s something bigger.
Nurse friend in a larger MI hospital said all non emergency procedures has been cancelled, and staff reallocated to ER and Covid Care.

…would take days to weeks to diagnose. The timeline for the necessary testing (like bloodwork, imaging, invasive studies) is quite lengthy especially in the middle of a pandemic. All possible physical causes have to be ruled out first. The effort should be that much more extensive because it is a child at stake. Something very wrong here unless the 12 year old has a pre-existing history of conversion disorder.

Chris, the FDA report that was used to get the EUA had more detailed data.
It has more detail on obesity, more detail on the side effects and some data on hospitalizations.
My take on the 2 month study is:

  • No statistical difference mortality (also in 6 month study) in which case the report says it is basically background rate. So where is the pandemic?
  • No statistical difference in Serious Adverse Events (SAE) which is the category that includes hospitalization (see Wikipedia SAE definition)
  • Large imbalance in Covid symptom side-effects (fatigue, headache, chills), for example: 18-55 yo severe fatigue (2nd dose) 4.6% with vaccine verses 0.7% with placebo. So one is far more likely to get Covid symptoms with the vaccine than without.
  • No evidence it reduces transmission.
Based on the report's info, how did it qualify for EUA? The listed benefit is reduced positive PCR tests, but what is more important, reduced illness or reduced positive PCR tests. Despite this data, the major media and political push is that it saves lives and reduces transmission. Amazingly they have convinced a lot of people that getting sick after the vaccine is a good thing. I understand that there is excessive deaths due to Covid, but the mRNA clinical trials (Moderna's numbers are similar) show that it is not excessive for the subject population. But the excessive deaths are explained by the CDC comorbidity study you previously presented with 96+% of Covid deaths having at least 2 comorbidities. If the EUA decision was up to me, I would denied the EUA and would have told them to do a study specifically on the vulnerable population. I have looked at a lot of the VAERS data and most of the vaccine (possible) death reports were in the vulnerable population so it is not obvious that is was a benefit. Multiple VAERS entries reported nursing home residents that had recovered from Covid at least 2 weeks died soon after the shots. Many reports had multiple resident death reports with same state and vax date and similar wording which makes it appear to have occurred at the same nursing home. If the vaccine deaths are so rare, multiple deaths at the same nursing home would be very improbable. Regarding the following from the 6 month study: "No new serious adverse events assessed as related by investigators were reported after data cut-off for the previous report." I find the "assessed as related" phrase to be a red flag based on the 12-15 year old study report ( that said that Maddie's injuries were not related to the vaccine even though they started the day of the 2nd shot. I suspect they are hiding something bad there.

The data from the July variants of concern report showed that more vaccinated people died of the Delta variant than the unvaccinated. Yet the media is pushing that the vaccinated will only get a mild case if at all.
See Table 5 in
In the subset of cases that were sequenced and were the Delta variant, deaths were:

  • Received 2 doses: 224
  • Unvaccinated: 165
Latest Covid notice at my work said that now the vaccinated will have to wear masks so that they don't make unvaccinated people seriously ill. So they make it sound like the unvaccinated are at fault for making the vaccinated wear masks. Plus they make it sound like only the unvaccinated are at risk of serious illness.

Watch these!
VERY EVIL STUFF… my blood is boiling!!!

  • Orchid

A Canadian citizen from Alberta just won a court case where the government was unable to present evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which would be needed to provide scientific proof underpinning all the pandemic regulations put forth in that province. They are in the process of reversing all emergency sanitary mesures.
Check this out.

Shame there is no mention in the study of vitamin D levels in those who experienced adverse events.

This really disturbed me. Maybe it's a statistical anomaly, but I fear it's something bigger.
I'm not sure it's either of those.  Assume that both groups (vaccinated and non-vaccinated) had N people.  Then those statistics on their own tell us that: non-vaccinated group
  1. N - 800 didn't catch anything
  2. 785 (or was it 786) caught COVID but didn't die
  3. 15 (or was it 14) caught COVID and died
vaccinated group
  1. N - 80 didn't catch anything
  2. 65 (or was it 66) caught COVID but didn't die
  3. 15 (or was it 14) caught COVID and died
Though the vaccine maybe didn't help those who fell into category 3, it possibly helped those in categories 1 and 2, especially if it prevented any of them from spreading the disease.

I heard one report that medical personnel weren’t testing those that were previously vaxxed. At a minimum, if someone is asymptomatic, which seems to be an issue amongst vaxxed, then they would be unlikely to get tested, which could throw off the vaxxed with Covid numbers

How interesting people just are deaf, dumb, and blind to what is actually known about the SARS COV 2 virus, and the Pfizer & Moderna mRNA serums.
What is perfectly predictable seems to escape most. Most are confused when everything makes perfect sense and is completely documented.
Is it because people just do not bother to educate themselves, or do they just not retain information longer than a few hours?
HOW can serious people look at long-term cognitive issues in the infected, and in the inoculated, with surprise and wonder, after being informed of the PRION DOMAINS in their spike-proteins? These S1/S2 spikes of the virus and the “vaccines” are both artificially created. The SARS COV 2 coronavirus is the ONLY coronavirus to HAVE a PRION DOMAIN associated with it, among ALL the other coronavirus known to Man.
While the short-term toxic effects of synthetic spike-proteins flooding the body, as caused by the mRNA “vaccines,” seem to be understood and their causes addressed, the LONG-TERM effects of these prion carrying spikes, seems poorly understood, but the long-term prognosis has always been the infected will present prion related brain diseases, along with their lethal results.
Here is a just published article about how infected people are now suffering cognitive issues in the longer-term…from Covid19:
Articles in The Lancet and Metro UK are referenced therein.
The trouble is…in these COVID19 related cognitive issues…the onset of prion induced brain disease, while quicker than other forms of brain diseases, still takes 2 to 4 years to become chronic and instigate death. The disease will be progressive over this short time frame, and its onset will appear to be quite mild and symptoms troubling, but not traumatic. One proceeds from “brain fog,” concentration problems, memory problems, and aphasia, to ever more chronic mental deterioration, resulting in eventual diagnosis of Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (vCJD), commonly referred to as “mad cow disease.”

Here is some data in a news report relating to Wales, showing that 60% of covid hospitalisations were double-vaccinated. I’m not sure what to make of it:

A Grand Cycle back to tribalism.

Chris, here is the Pfizer study

Let me help you understand.
The mRNA serums are not going to prevent anyone from being infected with SARS COV 2, or becoming sick with COVID19. Why? Because the “vaccine” IS THE ILLNESS, there is no difference between your body being infected by a few thousand SARS COV 2 virus, or by Trillions of the mRNA generated spike-proteins…which continue to be manufactured by your body for several MONTHS after it is injected.
Each causes the exact same symptoms and possibility of chronic harm, injury, and death.

What vaccines do is to allow your body to recognize a particular pathogen quicker, so your body can produce lymphocytes faster. They do not prevent you from becoming infected with a pathogen, and they do not prevent a pathogen from infecting another person.
In the case with mRNA serums (“vaccines”) they do not prevent infection, or the illness, or the spreading, of a targeted pathogen. They are only reportedly to reduce the severity of symptoms in 50% of the infected, who develop Covid19. But, this is a claim which cannot be verified, or, IMO, even claimed.

What the heck? Why couldn’t they produce evidence of it? So confused.

Call me when it goes through a mass spectrometer.