“Covid-19 Vaccine” adverse reactions; Part One: dropping dead?

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has released the Yellow Card reporting data for the “Covid-19 vaccines” being deployed in the UK  (the quotation marks are there because nothing about the term is literal). The Yellow Card system is one where anyone who suspects they have experienced one can report an adverse effect to a drug, in this case, either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca injections in the name of vaccination.

This article is going to introduce the reporting for the Pfizer “vaccine” product (a pdf containing the data can be found here), and a follow up article is going to introduce the reporting from the AstraZeneca product. A third article will take a closer look at more of the issues reported, and see if any patterns emerge.

Before proceeding, however, there are a number of points that must be made quite clear.

It is crucially important to understand that Covid-19, which we should call SARS, is a rare condition involving a pathogen, and at FBEL this is called SARS-COV, which binds to a protein on lung cells, called ACE2, and thereafter there is damage to the cell and collectively to the lung. The sufferer develops pneumonia, and often complications from it. This is why Covid-19 was first called novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia.

If anyone dies without having had the specific condition described above, they have not died of Covid-19. We can be sure, because this condition as it threatens to cause death will require intensive care treatment, and the actual numbers admitted to critical care bear it out, that the vast majority of people that UK Government say have died of/from/with Covid-19 did not in fact do that. Instead, they will have died of “Covid-19” – please notice the quotation marks – which is any illness, or even natural death, that has been attributed to Covid-19. Because the autopsying of people said to have died of Covid-19 has in essence been banned by UK Government (please see the FBEL article, Building The “Coronahoax” Charge Sheet: Reckoning Culpability For The Deliberate Inflation Of Covid-19 Death), there has been no post mortem way to disqualify the vast numbers who died of “Covid-19”.

From this, the reader should understand that there are two perspectives on Covid-19 and vaccination. There is the official one, from within a paradigm where vaccine is a plausible medicine for “Covid-19”, which is basically an elaborate fantasy. And then there is the natural perspective where it is clear that the real Covid-19 is an illness that doesn’t call for a vaccine, but is better dealt with by controlling levels of ACE2, or reducing its ability to accommodate an invading pathogen.

The MHRA claims in cover literature for the Yellow Card data that “vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19.” On the contrary, even within the paradigm where a vaccine is a plausible medicine, it’s been a well known fact for a long time that neither the Pfizer nor the AstraZeneca products can protect a recipient of a jab from severe Covid-19 illness; please see the FBEL article, The Pfizer vaccine’s meaningless 90% effectiveness, and the circus surrounding it,  for a gateway to fuller presentations of this information.

Moreover – and again, within the paradigm where a vaccine is a plausible medicine – it is also well documented that the Pfizer product is suspected not to be able to prevent the spread of Covid-19. The following is from a Daily Mail article titled, Pfizer CEO ‘not certain’ its Covid vaccine prevents transmission:

Pfizer didn’t collect data [in clinical trials] that would show whether volunteers who got its shot transmitted the virus (nor have other companies offered such data), so it’s possible that highly-contagious virus could continue spreading after we have vaccines.

Of course, the official line as it is being broadcast through corporate-media at this time is that the UK Government’s vaccination programme is denting transmission, but of course this is a complete fantasy. The reason for lower numbers in a so-called infection case rate is because PCR tests are obviously being processed at a lower cycle count threshold, as per WHO instruction.

To summarise, the Pfizer “vaccine” is pointless from whichever perspective one looks at it. As such, the point of few whereby there can be acceptable kinds and amounts of adverse reaction to the Pfizer “vaccine” is completely unacceptable. The reader is urged to remember this when reading the extracts of MHRA literature that are to be included here, and in general as there is examination of the thousands of adverse reactions to both drugs over the course of three articles.

The MHRA says that the Yellow Card reporting covers the period from 9th December, 2020, to 24th January, 2021. With respect the Pfizer product, it says that it had received and analysed 16,756 Yellow Cards, and these reports include a total of 49,472 suspected adverse reaction.

The MHRA says that of those nearly 50,000 reports of suspected vaccine side effect, 107 involved the patient dying shortly after vaccination. However, the MHRA makes this assertion:

The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death.

Of course, the schema by which any death after diagnoses of “Covid-19”, either by dodgy PCR test, or clinically (i.e. when an NHS technician has a guess), does not cut the other way: when there are deaths after a vaccine, they couldn’t possibly be attributed to the medicine.

It’s not that the people who make this assertion, in committee we should suspect, think that they will be dissuading the fair minded reader from coming to the conclusion that he sees yet another example of the corruption in the regime by which the “Covid-19” scam has a life. This is not a consideration. The objective is to establish an official reality by which the legal, medical, political establishment will work, and by which challenge through official channels can be fended off.

That being said, its serves as a reminder that there should be no jumping to conclusions that the Pfizer product has caused any adverse reaction, let alone any death. There should be, in the first instance, tolerance of the MHRA’s insistence that a reaction was in fact an inevitable condition that would have happened irrespective of the receipt of the product, and was a matter of pure luck. This is the safe position to adopt, for thereafter there can be an evaluation of how likely any coincidental misfortune would be. So, for instance, in considering that 5 people went blind after receiving the Pfizer injection, there might be a struggle to understand how such a catastrophe, even in this small amount of people, could be a coincidence. On the other hand, it could be argued that the very small sample is the crucial fact that definitively points to bad luck – although in counter argument, again, the fact that there were 634 reports of various eye disorders might suggest that blindness was the worst degree for adverse reactions generally involving the ocular organs.

We should note that the fragmentation of data into lists of reactions, without reference to whom they were occurring (in terms of a predilection to be ill) is a failing in the Yellow Card scheme that means that it’s hard to disprove an assertion that the data does not show that the Pfizer product has caused adverse reactions. Moreover, with there being more adverse reactions than reports, it means that reporters are having multiple adverse reactions, and it would be extremely helpful to know what these combinations are so that there can be greater understanding. For instance, if someone is overwhelmed with illness, and then there is commonality of the same pattern of illness, it could signal vaccine damage. It’s probably the case that the presentation of the data is exactly in its given form so that it is difficult to gainsay the MHRA when it concludes that “the overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials”.

The reference to clinical trials is another device in itself to dispel any sense of unsafeness that one might have by looking at the data, because it is only potential issues of adverse reaction. that appeared before the Pfizer product was approved, that the MHRA addresses in its cover literature. Thus, it has a strawman which it can dismiss to give the appearance that threatened hazards did not materialise, and therefore that the product is safe, all the while at the same time the data has other concerning elements.

The issues with the Pfizer product that came out of the clinical trials, says the MRHA, were adverse reactions associated with anaphylaxis, and facial paralysis and paresis (Bell’s Palsy was the specific condition named at the time). In the Yellow Card reporting, there were 101 incidents of the former, and 69 of the latter. That there are so few, so it appears we are expected to understand, shows that the expected safety issue has not materialised.

However, it clearly cannot be the case that all is well when there have been 49,472 suspected adverse reactions in 41 days†. As mentioned above, closer examination of the data will take place in the third part of this series, but for now it suffices to look at two types of adverse reaction which are a cause for concern.

Each type of adverse reaction in the long list in the MHRA data has two numbers; the first is how many cases occurred, and the second is how many reactions have proven to be fatal. There is an interesting  pair of numbers in the Pfizer data after the entry for general “death”: 59 and 53. Naturally, this begs the question, why don’t 59 cases of death as an adverse reaction  translate to 59 (instead of 53) fatalities, and the answer must be because in 6 cases, there is something else that can be said to have contributed to the termination. It follows from this that there were 53 cases where death was the reason for the fatality.

Moreover, there were also 7 cases of “sudden death” which were all fatal cases, or course, because sudden death is unexpected death, and there would appear to be no reason for it. Only that this would not be correct, of course, because a common factor in these deaths was the Pfizer vaccine product. So, in that case, we are confronted with 53 cases of general death, having two possible common factors; i.e. old age (because the vaccination programme was initially aimed at the oldest people in the country, and it is not so unreasonable to expect death when it happens to an aged person), or some unknown condition, happening soon after the administration of a jab. In the second case, of course, to avoid blaming the vaccine, there would have to be the added coincidence of a condition leading to death simultaneously coming upon people for no reason that can be apparent. Is this altogether too much coincidence?

Another interesting headline figure is the 217 occurrences of Covid-19, 10 of which were fatal. Of course, this must be a reference to the virtual “Covid-19”, which is a figment of imagination formed by a dodgy diagnosis – and we can suspect this because there is also a separate category in the data for Covid-19 pneumonia, which is likely be the real illness, although because the victims were undoubtedly not autopsied, this type of adverse reaction will not have been verified. In any case, note that there were 2 cases of this illness reported, 1 of which was fatal. This probably represents the true scale of the disease, and the true proportion compared with the phoney version. This site has always maintained that real Covid-19 death is in the low thousands.

The full importance of this piece of data, though, comes when we consider such stories as the one from Basingstoke where, in three weeks in January, 22 people died in a care home of what was ridiculously termed a “coronavirus outbreak”. Tellingly, “it is understood the outbreak started as residents began to have their first coronavirus vaccines”, reports the Basingstoke Gazette.

Also in January, in Fife, there was another so-called care home outbreak where 10 people all died at the same time. Now, the reporting of this story is cagey, and one has to calculate when this outbreak would have occurred from clues; i.e. the date of the emergence of the story (6th February), and the mention of no new positive tests for 14 days. The timing coincides with vaccination programme delivery for what UK Government called the most vulnerable. The word “vaccine” does not appear in this story, but this is completely understandable given the sensitivity of the subject.

The significance of deaths after the vaccine being blamed on “Covid-19” is that the illness only exists as a word on a care home residents’ file. Potentially, these cases are one where there has been general  death, or even sudden death, after a vaccine. It’s unclear, vested interests potentially being what they are, if care home businesses would report death, suspected as an adverse reaction from an act of dispensing a medicine, within the remit of caring for those it has a responsibility for. Further cases of mass simultaneous death in this context, then, is something to stay vigilant for.

And generally, as more data becomes available from the MHRA in future, and even when we look at more from the current set in the planned later articles in this series, it will be necessary to view it through a prism of suspicion that the so called “Covid-19 vaccines”, even if such an outcome is very rare, have caused its victims to literally drop down dead.

† Representing, 5.4 million first doses of the Pfizer product, says the MHRA; most of the 0.5 million second doses given in this time were of the Pfizer product.