COVID-19 Updates

Believe it or not, the story continues to unfold

COVID-19 spontaneously emerged from a “wet market” in Wuhan, China, we were told during the pandemic.

Suggestions that the virus escaped from the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) were unfounded and to be discounted, we were told during the pandemic.

It was irresponsible to question the safety and efficacy of the “vaccine” products and other safeguards, like lockdowns and mask mandates, we were told during the pandemic.

The “vaccine” is safe, we were told during the pandemic.

Wellllll… We know now that the virus emerged from WIV (we are supposed to say “most likely,” but we know). Other countries demonstrated that lockdowns and mask mandates were not necessary. It is time now to revisit the question of the safety and efficacy of the “vaccine” products.

If you are completely closed off to anything counter to what we were told during the pandemic, you will not get much from this article. Spare yourself and stop reading now. If you are interested in the evolving story and the truth that continues to trickle out over time, read on.

We are partial to the expression that “truth is resilient.” That resilience continues to be on display in the aftermath of the pandemic, the response to the pandemic, and the narrative that was constructed during the pandemic. Today, we take a break from covering the Trump presidency as we provide a look at some of the more recent COVID truths that have been revealed.

Before you read on, we ask you to pause for a moment to consider the following:

• What evidence, if any, would alter your perspective on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccine” products that were so strongly promoted by governments, media, and celebrities?

• If you whole-heartedly believe the “vaccine” products were essential to making it through the pandemic, what evidence would change your view?

• If you believe that the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the “vaccine” products were rolling out their injectables in good faith, what evidence would be sufficient to convince you of treachery?

And then there is the question: In whom do we place our trust? We have written in the past about how important it is to approach all reports on politically and culturally divisive issues with a healthy dose of skepticism, whether those reports are coming from media, politicians, or even straight from the scientists of academia.

We all recognize that bias and agendas exist in all corners of information dissemination. We here at Meet Me in the Middle have always been upfront about our agenda: to peel back the deceit far enough to see the underlying truths. In this article, we present data and reference reports that have exposed pertinent information about COVID-19 and the “vaccine” products — information that has gone under-reported to the greater public thanks to what we perceive as the deceit of the mainstream media and the institutions of power.

Here at Meet Me in the Middle, we thirst for the truth, but we understand that there are complexities with interpreting truth when it is so muddled by rhetoric and opinion. So, we assert the following as a guide for determining the “goodness” or “rightness” of the COVID-19 “vaccine” products and policies versus their “badness” or “wrongness”:

COVID-19 “vaccines” and policies were Good and Right if they helped people more than other approaches AND if they helped people more than they hurt. Otherwise, they were Bad and Wrong.

Buckle up, we have a lot to cover.

Interpreting Current Research

One of the challenges with understanding new medications is that some of the effects, whether positive or negative, cannot be fully understood until sufficient time has passed. That is why guidance in the practice of medicine changes and evolves with sufficient time to establish better understanding. In this section, we present a recent study that was published on December 30, 2024 and ask you to consider if this study represents a better understanding of what has resulted from widespread injections of the “vaccine” products.

“Covid-19 vaccinations, self-reported health, and worldviews – A representative survey from Germany,” by Dr. Harald Walach and Dr. Rainer Klement, was published in a scientific journal called Medical Research Archives. You can find the paper at this link and read it for yourself. If you do, you will see that the researchers analyzed 1,051 survey responses and concluded the following:

• “Vaccinated persons reported significantly more events that required the visit of a doctor (42% versus 30%, p = 0.0024), more Covid-19 infections (30% vs. 23%, p = 0.0535) and more musculoskeletal problems (21% vs. 15%, p = 0.059).”

• “Vaccinated respondents reported significantly more diseases overall.”

Those findings alone are pretty alarming — the “vaccinated” are statistically sicker now! And they are comparatively sicker than the unvaccinated, although the authors acknowledge that perhaps they were sicker before injection. There are a couple of other very significant nuggets to take away from this paper:

• “The belief that mRNA vaccinations help humankind was a highly significant predictor of the probability to be vaccinated.”

• “A propensity score analysis accounting for sociodemographic variables and pre-vaccination health status confirmed that Covid-19 occurred more frequently in vaccinated individuals (31% vs. 23%, p=0.103). Again, the belief that mRNA-based vaccines are beneficial to humanity was significantly more present among the propensity-score matched vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated group (agreed/disagreed/uncertain: 34.6%/30.8%/34.6% versus 22.9%/45.2%/31.9%, p=0.0075).”

These last two bullets are important because they illuminate the power of marketing and media to sway the beliefs of the general public. Those who believed “that mRNA vaccinations help humankind” were more likely to get “vaccinated.” Where did that belief come from? It obviously came from the messaging to the public about the “vaccine” products. It came from the politicians who were benefiting from campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies and it came from news and entertainment programs that were sponsored by vaccine manufacturers.

The authors concluded:

“In summary, our data support the notion that in Germany, people who decided to get vaccinated against Covid-19, held particular worldviews, were comparatively older and had a higher intake of medication, which we assume indicates higher comorbidity, than those who decided against vaccination. This might have placed them at greater risk for the subsequent emergence of new diseases. Our data also show that the very disease that was supposed to be prevented by the vaccination program, namely Covid-19, was reported more frequently by those having been vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, even after controlling for some important confounding effects of sociodemographic variables by propensity score analysis. Other side-effects were more numerous, too. These findings show that the promises made by those aggressively promoting the large vaccination campaign were untrue, as is likely the case too for the theoretical models inferring a significant health benefit from the worldwide vaccination programs.”

Buried in those conclusions: The “vaccinated” contracted COVID-19 more frequently than the unvaccinated.

Does that sound like a “vaccine” that “works”?

Remember the “this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated” rhetoric a few years ago? The idea was that the pandemic persisted because of the people who refused to take the injection. This data suggests that the “vaccines” contributed to the transmission of the virus.

Dr. Walach recently published a related article entitled “People With Covid-19 ‘Vaccination’ Are Sicker” discussing the findings of his study (linked here). He notes: “By the way: this survey was not financed by some anti-vaccination lobby, but by me personally, because I am interested in the topic.” Here are a few notes and quotes:

• He notes that the percentage of survey respondents who were “vaccinated” (82%) was only slightly higher than the “vaccinated” percentage of the population (76%).

• “The most important findings are, firstly, that all illnesses, except for ‘pain in the heart area’, are reported more frequently by ‘vaccinated people’.”

• “Vaccinated people visit the doctor, suffer from Covid-19 infections, and have problems with muscles and joints significantly more often.”

• “The ‘vaccinated’ have significantly more of all illnesses in total.”

• “It was clear that a clearly significant result could not be expected in every single category, because many of these diseases, cancer for example, or autoimmune diseases, are not very common overall and therefore the statistical power to detect such an effect in a sample of 1051 respondents was too small.”

• One of the differentiating details identified in the published paper is that the “vaccinated” were older than the unvaccinated in the sample of respondents. In this discussion, Dr. Walach notes that the “vaccinated” were only ~2% older (which is not much older at all).

Dr. Walach discusses these observations:

“If this ‘vaccination’ had positive effects overall, for example, if it had made people more robust and resistant to Covid-19 and other infections and had produced few or no side effects, then one would have expected the opposite pattern. Then the ‘unvaccinated’ would have to show more symptoms. But that is not the case across the board, with the exception mentioned above. Above all, the fact that all diseases per person are significantly more common among the ‘vaccinated’ and that Covid-19 infections are also more common among the ‘vaccinated’ shows that this intervention was rather harmful.”

The conclusion: The COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” products were harmful.

VAERS

Have you ever heard of the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System, or VAERS? As its name implies, it is a mechanism for health care professionals to report adverse effects from vaccines. VAERS was established in 1990 — from that time up until 2021, the number of vaccine-related deaths never reached more than a few hundred annually. But then something happened in 2021 that is illustrated so starkly in the image below, a screenshot from this link. The COVID-19 vaccines rolled out and VAERS was swamped with reports.

Historical Considerations of Vaccine/Drug Recalls

Please click on this link to view a summary of data on vaccine/drug recalls. It is an excellent visual aid for understanding how extremely skewed perspectives on the COVID-19 “vaccine” products are. Numerous other vaccines and drugs were recalled with only a double digit death count. The COVID-19 “vaccine” products have not been recalled despite being directly associated with over 37,000 deaths.

In this section, we reference a peer-reviewed article by Nicolas Hulscher, Mary T. Bowden, and Peter A. McCullough entitled “Review: Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits,” which was published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law on January 28, 2025.

As of September 6, 2024, healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies have reported 19,028 deaths in the United States to the CDC via VAERS. A total of 37,544 COVID-19 “vaccine” product deaths have been reported to VAERS among all participating countries.

Hulscher et al. referenced a 2021 study that reached the following conclusion: “We conclude that early ambulatory, multidrug therapy is associated with substantial reductions in hospitalization and death compared to available rates in the community. Prompt ambulatory treatment should be offered to high-risk patients with COVID-19 instead of watchful watching and late-stage hospitalization for salvage therapies.” The “multi drug therapy” is summarized as follows: “Our protocol utilizes at least two agents with antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 (zinc, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) along with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone.”

We’re supposed to follow the science, right? Based on what the mainstream media told us about medications like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the height of the pandemic, do you believe this referenced 2021 study was embraced or rejected by the scientific community? It was absolutely rejected. Imagine how little the pharmaceutical industry would have profited if these inexpensive protocols had been rolled out in 2021.

The authors’ review paper included a summary of negative effects of COVID-19 “vaccine” products, which were reported independent of the above-referenced Walach and Klement study:

• “Multiple studies have demonstrated that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals may face a higher risk of infection compared to unvaccinated individuals.”

• Referencing a 2022 paper: “Eythorsson et al. found that individuals vaccinated with two or more doses had a 42% higher risk of reinfection compared to those with one dose or less.”

• Referencing a 2022 paper: “Chemaitelly et al. estimated that the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccines against Omicron subvariants declined significantly, reaching negative effectiveness levels (-17.8% and -12.1% for Pfizer; -10.2% and -20.4% for Moderna) after seven months.”

• Referencing a 2023 paper: “Shrestha et al. found a dose-dependent increased risk of COVID-19 infection, with individuals receiving more than three doses experiencing a 253% higher risk compared to unvaccinated individuals.”

• Referencing a 2024 paper: “Feldstein et al. revealed that vaccinated children aged 6 months to 4 years without prior infection were 159% more likely to get infected and 257% more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to their unvaccinated peers.”

• “These findings collectively raise serious concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety of repeated COVID-19 vaccine doses, suggesting that continued reliance on this strategy may inadvertently increase susceptibility to infection and adverse outcomes.”

Understanding “AESIs” and “SAEs”

This is getting a bit into some industry lingo, but our investigation repeatedly brought up the term “AESI,” which stands for Adverse Effects of Special Interest. We thought it worthwhile to explain where this term comes from and what it means in the context of understanding COVID-19 “vaccination” data. In 2020, an organization called the Brighton Collaboration created a “priority list” of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines and dubbed those events “AESIs”. The World Health Organization adopted that list of AESIs for the purpose of evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine products.

Why do AESIs matter? First, we must understand that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” products based on phase III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The list of AESIs is helpful because it is an independently pre-defined list of adverse effect and is useful in evaluating the results of the phase III clinical trials. Now, in the documentation submitted by Moderna and Pfizer to the FDA, they identified what is known as Serious Adverse Effects, or SAEs. While both Moderna and Pfizer identified generally identical potential SAEs, studies of the adverse effects of COVID-19 “vaccine” products tend to gravitate to the independently-defined AESIs for their evaluation.

Ok, with that background out of the way, we can now get into some of what the health data analysis community has extracted from the clinical trial documentation, discussed in this linked paper (Fraiman et al.). Both the Pfizer and Moderna trials were expected to follow participants for two years under “blind” conditions — that is, each participant has no idea if they received the experimental medication or a placebo. After a few weeks, the trial was unblinded and those who originally received the placebo were offered the “vaccine” product — those who chose to take the “vaccine” product thus invalidated a portion of the placebo data.

The Pfizer and Moderna trials reported 237 SAEs, 97% of which fell under the definition of serious AESIs. Most side effects appeared as blood clotting disorders. More cardiovascular AESIs were reported in the Pfizer vaccination groups than in the control groups. Serious AESIs were 36% more common in Moderna’s vaccinated trials participants and 57% more common in Pfizer’s.

Fraiman et al. provide this assessment of the risk of harm compared to the prospect of benefit from the Moderna and Pfizer trials:

“In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants). In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).”

Let that soak in. Per the clinical trials that were the ACTUAL BASIS for FDA authorization of these “vaccine” products, taking these injections gave trial subjects a higher chance of SERIOUS adverse effects than the chance of reducing the risk of hospitalization. The potential for risk is much higher than the potential to help.

How did these “vaccine” products ever get approved?

Connecting the Dots

There are many questions surrounding the COVID-19 “vaccine” products, the manner in which they were approved, the degree to which they are still available on the market, and the extent to which the government protects the pharmaceutical companies that developed them. Here are a few dots that we feel are connected:

1. An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) helped fast-track the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccine” products. That EUA would essentially have been void if there had been an alternative treatment demonstrated to be safe and effective.

2. Alternative treatments did exist and were demonstrated, but a propaganda campaign convinced many Americans that those treatments were dangerous despite decades of safe-use history with those medications. Drug makers already had these safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative treatments “on the ready” early in the pandemic, but they were baselessly sidelined in favor of the mRNA products.

3. The FDA approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA products based on clinical trials that revealed a multitude of serious adverse effects, well beyond what would be approved under normal circumstances.

4. The rationale for vaccines is that, despite a low percentage of injury or death resulting from some vaccines, their use provides greater benefit to the overall population. Knowing that all vaccines cause some harm (hopefully to only a very few), the U.S. government uses the Vaccine Compensation Injury Program (VCIP) to financially compensate those who are negatively impacted by vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA products are not covered by the VCIP.

5. Despite the documented dangers associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA products and despite the number of deaths resulting from these injections being completely out of proportion to other vaccines and medications that have been recalled, these products remain on the market.

6. In one of his final acts as president, Joe Biden extended liability protection through 2029 for companies and health care professionals producing and administering COVID-19 “vaccine” products. Biden’s extension also explicitly states: “Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party’s ability to obtain compensation under that program.”

The discussion up to this point lays the foundation for a most critical revelation, brought to us via The Pfizer Papers…

The Pfizer Papers

Now we come to the inspiration for this article, a book entitled The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity by Naomi Wolf. You see, we thought at least most of the public record had been settled when it came to the story of the mRNA “vaccine” products that were distributed around the world. We thought we had a pretty good handle on the extent to which pharmaceutical companies were deceiving the general public about the safety and efficacy of the mRNA “vaccine” products. Naomi Wolf opened some eyes, including ours.

It is our belief that every human being who desires a true understanding of the story of the pandemic should read The Pfizer Papers.

This book is primarily based on actual internal documents from Pfizer, but also explores adjacent investigations (like autopsies). The lead author explains that her team’s access to hundreds of thousands of pages of Pfizer documents came as the result of a successful lawsuit — and that was the beginning of this grand project, which involved 3,250 “highly credentialed doctors and scientists” and which culminated in this book.

Naomi Wolf provides some of the background of this book in this linked article. She explains some of her personal experiences:

“I had been deplatformed in June 2021, before the Pfizer documents came out, for the crime of warning that women were reporting menstrual dysregulation upon having received the mRNA injections. As a career-long writer on women’s sexual and reproductive health issues, I knew that this was a serious danger signal and that this side effect would affect fertility.”

Indeed, The Pfizer Papers highlight the disproportionate number of women experiencing adverse effects. In her words: “The material in the documents makes it clear that damaging human’s ability to reproduce and causing spontaneous abortions of babies is ‘not a bug, it is a feature.’” She explains: “In one section of the documents, over 80 percent of the pregnancies followed resulted in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. In another section of the documents, two newborn babies died, and Pfizer described the cause of death as ‘maternal exposure’ to the vaccine.”

The Pfizer Papers book is dense with data and with shock. It is shocking how much Pfizer knew about their experimental mRNA products, but continued to manufacture it, distribute it, and profit wildly from it. One data point from the book: Pfizer knew of 1,233 deaths within the first three months of their “vaccine” product rollout. If you are not sure you want to spend your valuable time reading a 400+ page exposé of a pharmaceutical company’s vile practices, perhaps the following list of chapter titles will give you a good sense of what the book has to offer and a solid idea of the “crimes” perpetrated by the institutions that impacted the entire global population:

One: “Liver Adverse Events—Five Deaths Within 20 Days of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID Injection. 50% of Adverse Events Occurred Within Three Days.”

Two: “Nine Months Post-COVID mRNA ‘Vaccine’ Rollout, Substantial Birth Rate Drops in 13 European Countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan.”

Three: “77% of Cardiovascular Adverse Events from Pfizer’s mRNA COVID Shot Occurred in Women, as Well as in People Under Age 65. Two Minors Suffered Cardiac Events.”

Four: “Infants and Children Under 12 Given the Pfizer mRNA COVID ‘Vaccine’ Seven Months BEFORE Pediatric Approval. 71% of Adverse Event Cases Classified as Serious.”

Five: “Autopsies Reveal Medical Atrocities of Genetic Therapies Being Used Against a Respiratory Virus”

Six: “542 Neurological Adverse Events, 95% Serious, in First 90 Days of Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Rollout. 16 Deaths. Females Suffered AEs More Than Twice As Often As Males.”

Seven: “Part 2–‘Autopsies Reveal Medical Atrocities of Genetic Therapies Being Used Against a Respiratory Virus’”

Eight: “The Flawed Trial of Pfizer’s mRNA ‘Vaccine’”

Nine: “449 Patients Suffer Bell’s Palsy Following Pfizer mRNA COVID Vaccination in Initial Three Months of Rollout. A One-Year-Old Endured Bells Palsy After Unauthorized Injection.”

Ten: “Ute Krüger, MD, Breast Cancer Specialist, Reveals Increase in Cancers and Occurrences of ‘Turbo Cancers’ Following Genetic Therapy ‘Vaccines.’”

Eleven: “Acute Kidney Injury and Acute Renal Failure Following Pfizer mRNA COVID Vaccination. 33% of Patients Died. Pfizer Concludes, ‘No New Safety Issue.’”

Twelve: “In the First Three Months of Pfizer’s mRNA ‘Vaccine’ Rollout, Nine Patients Died of Anaphylaxis. 79% of Anaphylaxis Adverse Events Were Rated as ‘Serious.’”

Thirteen: “1,077 Immune-Mediated/Autoimmune Adverse Events in First 90 Days of Pfizer mRNA COVID Vaccination”Vaccine” Rollout, Including 12 Fatalities. Pfizer Under-counted This Category of Adverse Events by 270 Occurences.”

Fourteen: “34 Blood Vessel Inflammation, Vasculitis, Adverse Events Occurred in First 90 Days After Pfizer mRNA COVID “Vaccine” Rollout, Including One Fatality. Half Had Onset Within Three Days of Injection. 81% of Sufferers Were Women.”

Fifteen: “Pfizer and FDA Knew in Early 2021 That Pfizer mRNA COVID Vaccination”Vaccine” Caused Dire Fetal and Infant Risks, Including Death. They Began an Aggressive Campaign to Vaccinate Pregnant Women Anyway.”

Sixteen: “Histopathology Series Part 4c—Autoimmunity: A Principal Pathological Mechanism of COVID-19 Gene Therapy Harm (CoVax Diseases) and a Central FLaw in the LNP/mRNA Platform”

Seventeen: “Musculoskeletal Adverse Events of Special Interest Afflicted 8.5% of Patients in Pfizer’s Post-Marketing Data Set, Including Four Children and One Infant. Women Affected at a Ratio of Almost 4:1 Over Men.”

Eighteen: “‘Other AESIs’ Included MERS, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS), Herpes Infections, and 96 DEATHS. 15 Patients Were Under Age 12, Including Six Infants.”

Nineteen: “Pfizer Knew By November 2020 That It’s mRNA COVID Vaccine Was Neither Safe Nor Effective. Here Is What Pfizer’s Employees and Contractors Knew and When They Knew It.”

Twenty: “mRNA COVID Shot”Vaccines” Have Created a New Class of Multi-Organ/System Disease: “CoVax Disease.” Children from Conception on Suffer Its Devastating Effects.— Histopathology Series—Part 4d”

Twenty-One: “Women Suffered 94% of Dermatological Adverse Events Reported in First 90 Days of Pfizer Covid “Vaccine” Rollout. 80% of These Adverse Events Were Categorized As ‘Serious.’”

Twenty-Two: “Thirty-Two Percent of Pfizer’s Post-Marketing Respiratory Adverse Event Patients Died, Yet Pfizer Found No New Safety Signals.”

Twenty-Three: “mRNA COVID Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis at One Year Post-Injection: Spike Protein, Inflammation Still Present in Heart Tissue.”

Twenty-Four: “Moderna mRNA COVID-19 Injection Damaged Mammals’ Reproduction: 22% Fewer Pregnancies; Skeletal Malformations, Pain, Nursing Problems in Pups. FDA Knew, Yet Granted EUA.”

Twenty-Five: “23% of Vaccinated Mothers’ Fetuses or Neonates Died. Suppressed Lactation and Breast Milk Discoloration Reported.”

Twenty-Six: “WarRoom/DailyClout Research Team Breaks Huge Story: More Cardiovascular Deaths in Vaxxed Than Unvaxxed; Pfizer Did Not Report Adverse Event Signal; Death Reporting Delays Favored Pfizer/Vaccinated.”

Twenty-Seven: “The Underlying Pathology of Spike Protein Biodistribution in People That Died Post COVID-19 Vaccination”

Twenty-Eight: “Pfizer’s Clinical Trial ‘Process 2’ COVID Vaccine Recipients Suffered 2.4X the Adverse Events of Placebo Recipients; ‘Process 2’ Vials Were Contaminated with DNA Plasmids.”

Twenty-Nine: “In Early 2021, Pfizer Documented Significant Harms and Deaths Following Vaccination with Its mRNA COVID Vaccine. The FDA Did Not Inform the Public.”

Thirty: “2.5 Months After COVID Vaccine Rollout, Pfizer Changed Criteria for ‘Vaccination Failure,’ Causing 99% of Reported Cases to Not Meet That Definition. 3.9% of Reported ‘Lack of Efficacy’ Cases Ended in Death in First 90 Days of Public Vaccine Availability.”

Thirty-One: “WarRoom/DailyClout Researchers Find Pfizer Delayed Recording Vaccinated Deaths at Critical Juncture of EUA Process. Improper Delays in Reporting Deaths in the Vaccinated Led FDA to Misstate Vaccine’s Effectiveness, Influenced EUA Grant Decision.”

Thirty-Two: Pfizer’s ‘Post-Marketing Surveillance’ Shows mRNA-Vaccinated Suffered 1000s of Covid Cases in 1st 90 Days of Vaccine Rollout. Most Infections in the Vaccinated Categorized as ‘Serious Adverse Events.’”

Thirty-Three: “FDA Based Moderna’s mRNA COVID Vaccine Approval on Test of a Completely Different Non-COVID Vaccine. Only Males Included in Test.”

Thirty-Four: “100s of Possible Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) Cases in First 3 Months of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID Vaccine Rollout, Yet Public Health Spokespeople Minimized Their Severity by Calling Them ‘Breakthrough Cases.’”

These chapter titles are like attention-grabbing headlines, but the detail of each chapter is even more alarming. Among the documents that The Pfizer Papers detail is 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Events Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021, which the authors refer to simply as “5.3.6.” 5.3.6 covers adverse events reported to Pfizer ONLY for a 90-day period that began on December 1, 2020 (the first day of the UK’s rollout of the Pfizer mRNA “vaccine” product). Despite such a short period of time (only 90 days), key points of 5.3.6, per the authors of The Pfizer Papers, include:

• 542 neurological events, 95% of which were serious, and 16 were fatal

• 50% of events occurred within the first 24 hours after injection, equating to over 270 events in a single day.

• 69% of the neurological events affect females, and 31% occurred in males.

• 376 seizures were reported, twelve of which were “status epilepticus,” a rare condition of prolonged seizure or series of seizures that is life-threatening.

• 38 cases of multiple sclerosis.

• 11 cases of transverse myelitis (a destructive inflammation of the spinal cord).

• 10 cases of optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve threatening blindness).

• 24 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, ascending paralysis from nerve inflammation.

• Three cases of meningitis (infection and inflammation of the fluid and membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord).

• Seven cases of encephalopathy (any disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure; hallmark is altered mental state).

• Only adverse events that occurred two or more times are specifically reported in the diagnoses list. There were twenty events that happened once and, thus, were not included.

This list should terrify. And, for the sake of emphasis, these findings were only from the first 90 days following the rollout. Should these findings have been reported to the public? Did the public deserve to know about these risks before deciding to take the injection? Does a company that obscured these findings deserve to be protected by the government from liability for these or any other injuries and deaths?

There are two chapters on autopsies of individuals who died following COVID-19 “vaccination,” most of whom “had a sudden death.” It was overwhelmingly confirmed that the injections had influence on the death occurrence in the majority of the evaluated cases. These autopsies led to the creation of a new term that, prior to the rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” products, did not exist: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS). Comforting, huh?

You MUST understand this: The Pfizer Papers are not just about what happened three or four years ago — these mRNA “vaccine” products are STILL HARMING AND KILLING PEOPLE today. As we mentioned, this book is dense with data, all of which is worthy of consideration and understanding. We encourage everyone to give it a read, especially if you have been convinced to continue getting injections.

At the time of this writing, Wolf’s The Moderna Papers is scheduled for release in August 2025. It will no doubt offer more insights into the corruption of pharmaceutical corporations.

Bringing It On Home

In this article, we lay out some of the most current and eye-opening research/analysis on the COVID-19 “vaccine” products that were pushed upon the public, revealing real dangers associated with the injections.

Here is just a quick recap of what the data shows us:

1. Those that received the “vaccine” product injections were more likely to contract (and spread) COVID-19 than those who did not.

2. The chance of contracting (and spreading) COVID-19 increased with the number of shots/boosters received.

3. Death and injury from the “vaccine” products are well documented and the “vaccine” product manufacturers knew of the risks very early on, but obscured them from the public and the FDA.

4. Pfizer tested their “vaccine” products on children prior to federal authorization to do so.

5. Women are harmed by the mRNA “vaccine” products disproportionately compared with men.

If even a few of these details were known in 2021, do you think the vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed war would have been so hate-fueled? Just imagine, people might have said, “You know what, I understand the risks and choose to take the injection, but I can also understand why you might not,” instead of, “If you are too stupid to take the vaccine, you don’t deserve medical care.

Going back to our earlier criteria — Were the COVID-19 policies and “vaccine” products better than other approaches? Did they help or hurt people more? With hindsight and data to aid us, should we evaluate them as Good and Right? Or Bad and Wrong? Were Pfizer, Moderna, and the FDA negligent, leading to unnecessary deaths and injury? What could our leaders have done differently?

Do we learn from new data and figure out how to come together, or do we stay divided? We like to think there is plenty of room in the middle — we invite you to join us there!