I do believe there are people experiencing some kind of transmission from vaccinated people, causing symptoms including bleeding and clots. But neither your post nor the copied info it contains from an unlinked source appears to be evidence of this.
I note the author of the unsourced images in your post says the report is long and technical, and therefore we should just trust his analysis of it. I chose to take a closer look.
Unfortunately, his analysis is based off a falsehood, and has no logical basis. Namely, he misquoted the definition of "study intervention". Pfizer is referring to the vaccine. But the author of the images in your post claims they're referring to "vaccine test subjects", which is wrong. Read the study yourself - it makes no sense if study intervention means test subject, but perfect sense if it means vaccine. It appears the author of your post's images has little or no experience reading and understanding scientific literature, because they got that completely backwards, then based everything else on it.
So either through ignorance or malice, the author distorted the findings of the study to fit his assumption that the "vaccines" are causing symptoms in unvaccinated people.
What Pfizer was saying there was 'if somebody from outside the study accidentally receives some of the vaccine and experiences a side effect, that shouldn't be included in the study'. For example, if a nurse made a needlestick injury when giving patients the vaccine, and had a rash, they wouldn't count it in their report. This is standard wording for studies like this.
I'm extremely anti-mRNA-jab, and have done dozens of detailed posts on the topic, if you're interested. We need to expose the problems with these products, but we have to do it truthfully and accurately, or we discredit ourselves and our cause.
I'm extremely anti-mRNA-jab, and have done dozens of detailed posts on the topic, if you're interested. We need to expose the problems with these products, but we have to do it truthfully and accurately, or we discredit ourselves and our cause.
While I confess I've held biases that triggered some resistance while reading through the majority of your comment, these last couple sentences are gold.
Can you expand on the resistance you feel toward my comment? Is anything about it incorrect? I'm just trying to figure this out. I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes, it's not personal.
I just uploaded a post on the topic, if you're interested, I'd appreciate your feedback.
Thanks. I had a skim through the study.
I do believe there are people experiencing some kind of transmission from vaccinated people, causing symptoms including bleeding and clots. But neither your post nor the copied info it contains from an unlinked source appears to be evidence of this.
I note the author of the unsourced images in your post says the report is long and technical, and therefore we should just trust his analysis of it. I chose to take a closer look.
Unfortunately, his analysis is based off a falsehood, and has no logical basis. Namely, he misquoted the definition of "study intervention". Pfizer is referring to the vaccine. But the author of the images in your post claims they're referring to "vaccine test subjects", which is wrong. Read the study yourself - it makes no sense if study intervention means test subject, but perfect sense if it means vaccine. It appears the author of your post's images has little or no experience reading and understanding scientific literature, because they got that completely backwards, then based everything else on it.
So either through ignorance or malice, the author distorted the findings of the study to fit his assumption that the "vaccines" are causing symptoms in unvaccinated people.
What Pfizer was saying there was 'if somebody from outside the study accidentally receives some of the vaccine and experiences a side effect, that shouldn't be included in the study'. For example, if a nurse made a needlestick injury when giving patients the vaccine, and had a rash, they wouldn't count it in their report. This is standard wording for studies like this.
I'm extremely anti-mRNA-jab, and have done dozens of detailed posts on the topic, if you're interested. We need to expose the problems with these products, but we have to do it truthfully and accurately, or we discredit ourselves and our cause.
While I confess I've held biases that triggered some resistance while reading through the majority of your comment, these last couple sentences are gold.
👌⭐️
Can you expand on the resistance you feel toward my comment? Is anything about it incorrect? I'm just trying to figure this out. I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes, it's not personal.
I just uploaded a post on the topic, if you're interested, I'd appreciate your feedback.