The long and tortuous publication saga of an article challenging the “safe and effective” narrative, the censorship of science and the manufactured “general consensus”
Thanks to you and your colleagues for your persistent efforts despite adversity!
A small erratum in the Oncotarget 28827 paper:
It says in 3rd para of Introduction, "As relayed above, preliminary studies on carcinogenicity and genotoxicity were not conducted, and the randomized trial study of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was prematurely halted after approximately 6 months, offering the placebo group the chance to vaccinate [31], ..."
However, according to reference [31], the participants were unblinded after only 2 months and offered the BNT162b2 product. The followup observations did continue for up to 6 months after initial injection and then the trial halted.
(The rest of this comment might not be useful to the aim of your paper, but fills in more of the story.)
So the full 3 years of the already abbreviated/accelerated combined Phase 2 and 3 clinical trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, was never completed. Additionally there are allegations by a whistleblower of serious problems at one of the trial locations.
Finally, when BNT162b2 was "authorized" for rollout to the public, a switch was pulled. The trialled Process 1 product had been made by RT-PCR. The distributed Process 2 product was made using bacterial DNA plasmids, for reasons of scaling up manufacturing. See for example https://pfizersibilusceraula.substack.com/p/uncovering-the-quiet-switch-how-a
Thus the public got an untested product, since discovered by various researchers to be contaminated with residual DNA plasmids and the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence, and also of widely varying batch quality.
Thanks to you and your colleagues for your persistent efforts despite adversity!
A small erratum in the Oncotarget 28827 paper:
It says in 3rd para of Introduction, "As relayed above, preliminary studies on carcinogenicity and genotoxicity were not conducted, and the randomized trial study of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was prematurely halted after approximately 6 months, offering the placebo group the chance to vaccinate [31], ..."
However, according to reference [31], the participants were unblinded after only 2 months and offered the BNT162b2 product. The followup observations did continue for up to 6 months after initial injection and then the trial halted.
(The rest of this comment might not be useful to the aim of your paper, but fills in more of the story.)
So the full 3 years of the already abbreviated/accelerated combined Phase 2 and 3 clinical trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, was never completed. Additionally there are allegations by a whistleblower of serious problems at one of the trial locations.
Finally, when BNT162b2 was "authorized" for rollout to the public, a switch was pulled. The trialled Process 1 product had been made by RT-PCR. The distributed Process 2 product was made using bacterial DNA plasmids, for reasons of scaling up manufacturing. See for example https://pfizersibilusceraula.substack.com/p/uncovering-the-quiet-switch-how-a
Thus the public got an untested product, since discovered by various researchers to be contaminated with residual DNA plasmids and the SV40 promoter/enhancer sequence, and also of widely varying batch quality.
(Sorry i cannot seem to edit the above comment.)
Just wanted to acknowledge that you do refer to the DNA plasmid contamination later in the discussion part of the paper.