Pfizer’s Delayed Myocarditis Study

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing

This headline has garnered so much attention on social media that I was asked to participate in an interview last night to discuss the topic. First, I had to clarify that I cannot be interviewed about ACIP issues without prior clearance from HHS Communications. Once that was understood, at 6:00 PM (dinner time!) I dialed in via Zoom, and we talked on the record. No, I do not know if or when the interview will be aired. Before the interview, as usual, I did the necessary diligence to avoid embarrassing myself due to ignorance, keeping in mind the first rule of social media.

It is often better to stay quiet and have people wonder if you are ignorant than to tweet and remove all doubt.

Let’s dive into the details. I think that this particular situation provides a great example of how bias, combined with insufficient background and subject matter experience, can lead to unjustified clickbait headlines. This is a chronic problem on both sides of the mRNA “vaccine” safety debate, one which makes it so, so much harder to get to the bottom of all of this.

I will try to explain so that most can understand, but it may get a little technical. The nuances of clinical research study design and implementation are complicated. Please try to stick it out, if for no other reason than it does lead back to some statements from CDC’s Captain Dr. Sarah Meyer (CDC/NCEZID) during her recent presentation titled “COVID-19 safety update” regarding long-term outcomes from COVID-19 mRNA product myocarditis. Consider that an embedded easter egg.

To illustrate how much traction this article received, below is a clipped post from Canadian influencer Liz Churchill, which has garnered about a million views as I write this. Now, I have no issues with Liz Churchill. She follows me, pretty sure I follow her. She often posts content I find interesting. She does tend towards being a bit strident, and like many (particularly some Canadians), she has been radicalized by what we all have experienced during the COVIDcrisis. But for the sake of discussion, let’s look at Mr. Frank Bergman’s alarming Slay News article that she was posting about from the point of view of the question in her “X” post. Rephrasing and dialing the rhetoric back a bit, Liz basically poses the question, “Why is it legal for Pfizer to delay this study until 2030?”

As a starting point, when asked to comment with a video record, my first reaction was to go along with this narrative. Pfizer and FDA had clearly previously attempted to keep adverse event data concerning the “Comirnaty” mRNA product from independent scrutiny for a very long period of time, and it took legal action and a court order to get those data released.

Querying Grok on the topic with the question “Did Pfizer and FDA try to hide adverse event data about Comirnaty?” yielded the following summary conclusion:

While delays in data release and trial oversight issues raised suspicions, there’s no conclusive evidence that Pfizer or the FDA systematically hid adverse event data. The FOIA process, though slow, followed legal protocols, and adverse event reports were publicly accessible, with limitations clearly stated. However, skepticism persists due to the initial timeline, whistleblower allegations, and distrust in institutional transparency.

Well, that is one AI’s interpretation of events. I personally take a bit darker view of what happened in light of the assertion that it would require until 2076 to release these documents. Still, in the end, the data were disclosed, as I had suggested to Steve Bannon the War Room Posse was recruited to review the documents. Feminist writer, PhD Dr. Naomi Wolff (neither trained nor experienced in science or medicine), then published her summary of their findings.

I think that we can all agree that, in the context of Pfizer, FDA, and Comirnaty, “distrust in institutional transparency” is an understatement. When viewed through that experience, this Slay News headline appears as the same three players coming together again to rub salt into the gaping wound of public trust. I admit that was my reaction when I saw posts about the article. Here they go again. What arrogance! New administration, and still the same old… stuff. Kick the can down the road to avoid accountability. Yawn. Old news. Move on to the next click.

[—-]

Reszta w oryginale, bo długie,a istota tu już jest md]