© Off-Guardian
You can read them all here.
The question is, do they really tell us anything we don't already know?
The big revelation doing the rounds at the minute is that the vaccines were never trialled with, and were specifically not recommended for, pregnant women.
But is this new information?
When governments started "recommending" the Covid vaccine to pregnant women in the Summer of 2021, everybody who had been paying attention knew that position was not backed up by any data at all.
OffG got temporarily banned from twitter for pointing this out.
More broadly speaking: Of course the vaccines were never tested on pregnant women, they were never properly tested on anybody.
It takes 10 years to safely produce and trial a vaccine, not 18 months. And what "trials" they claim to have done in that year and a half were a complete sham.
In a way, the "not recommended for pregnant women" disclosure is actually good for Pfizer.
Behind a facade of being legally mandated to publish these files, it's now become public knowledge that Pfizer (allegedly) told people not to give the vaccine to pregnant women, but many countries did it anyway.
This shifts the blame (and potential legal liability) away from Pfizer and onto the governments in question.
A good example of how "forced disclosure" can be used to reinforce and direct a narrative, through a pretence of reluctance.
Going further, shouldn't we be asking: Can we trust anything in these documents at all?
Just because Pfizer has been (apparently) legally "forced" to release them doesn't mean they are important, relevant or even real. Who's verifying the documents? Who's auditing Pfizer to make sure they release everything? The US government? Some other government or agency?
Do you trust them?
The real damning documents - if such ever existed - have likely been shredded, burned and buried in 20 feet of concrete by now...and that doesn't matter, because we already know everything we will ever need to know about these Covid "vaccines":
- They were not subject to proper long-term testing.
- They have totally unknown long-term side effects.
- They allegedly "treat" a "disease" with a 99.85% survival rate.
- They don't prevent infection.
- They don't prevent transmission.
- The manufacturers are legally protected from being sued in the event they kill you.
That is why the release of all these documents is so important, as even a pattern of negligence may work in litigating a particular case. For example, Prizer KNEW the mRNA vaccine was not suitable for present women - yet failed to stop the CDC, FDA and others from telling woman to take the vaccine - that is a classic case of willful negligence if there ever was one - and there are many more cases that are winnable against Pfizer and Moderna from what is in those documents.
It is NOT a coincidence that Wall Street has been selling their holding in both these companies. The plaintiffs bar is examining these data releases very closely, and will soon start advising clients they are ready to file for multi-million dollar claims against both.