Categories
NFU

What exactly was the FDA trying (not) to say, in its summary of the Pfizer “vaccine” trials?

Incomprehensibly tortured prose (or garbled speech) is often a red flag—a sign of either willful obfuscation (as, I suspect, in this case) or bad faith. (My book, The Bush Dyslexicon, is a close study of Dubya’s often comical misstatements as unconscious demonstrations of the latter.)

From Sharyl Attkisson: 

Maybe I’m not that smart but I’m also not stupid. There’s obviously a reason for the convoluted and tortured sentence structure that makes it almost impossible to decipher:

Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol- specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.

I’m still not sure what they’re saying.

Overall (in the bigger picture),
though (but?),
data do *not* raise concern (no concern)
that reporting suspected Covid-19 (that reporting suspected cases)
could (could)
have masked (have hidden)
adverse events (vaccine adverse events)
that would
not
have otherwise
been detected (not revealed through other means).

This seems to mean, or to imply that:

People who thought they had COVID-19 after vaccination were really just suffering from vaccine side effects that are similar to COVID-19 symptoms.

If so, wouldn’t that have masked the reporting of vaccine side effects because they were misdiagnosed as COVID-19?

One reply on “What exactly was the FDA trying (not) to say, in its summary of the Pfizer “vaccine” trials?”

lol a Shelley poem makes more sense:
“But for such faith with nature reconciled
Thou hast a voice, great mountain, to repeal
Large codes of fraud and woe–not understood
By all, bit which the wise, and great, and good
Interpret, or make felt, or deeply feel.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.