NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[biosectinvestor]

You did not post any court order or court document. You just posted an available document about Pfizer's adverse events which they provided and implied it was only released on court order and was sealed for 75 years by the courts, meaning it is unavailable. Yet there you have it. I put in your previous complete post, not this shortened one, and ChatGPT answered below. I know you said you don't trust media but you do trust AI.

I inserted your complete previous post before it was partially deleted and asked ChatGPT to analyze it:

This person has posted this on a biotech chat board and I would like to address the comment, whether truthful or not truthful, respectfully. Can you address the factual points one by one with as much specificity as possible. Address it both as an expert in public health and regulatory medicine as well with legal and scientific precision:

PFIZER UNDER OATH SAID IT CONDUCTED FRAUDULENT TRIALS, ADMITTED THAT ITS VACCINES WERE NOT SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. YOU THINK THE JUDGE/ PFIZER/OR THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE NEEDS HELP FROM SOURCES TO FACT CHECK WHATS ON THE COURT DOCKETS?

PFIZER'S COUNCEL, WHO WAS ACTUALLY AN FDA EMPLOYEE 🤔: "PLEASE JUDGE DISMISS THIS CASE, WE (PFIZER) DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD, WE DELIVERED THE FRAUD THAT THE GOV'T ORDERED!)

THERE'S NO PATH TO OVERCOME THIS REALITY”"

I asked ChatGPT, and I needed to upload the document twice, but here is a general discussion of your post after I asked ChatGPT:

ChatGPT Answer:

Based on the document you provided and the context of post-marketing surveillance, there is no data suggesting that the original post on the biotech chat board is accurate. Let's address the claims made in the post:

Pfizer Under Oath About Fraudulent Trials: There is no evidence in the document you provided, or from credible sources, indicating that Pfizer has admitted under oath to conducting fraudulent trials. The clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were conducted according to international standards for safety and efficacy and were peer-reviewed. Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA reviewed these trials before granting emergency use authorization or approval.

Admission of Vaccine Being Not Safe and Effective: The document does not contain any admission by Pfizer that its COVID-19 vaccine is not safe and effective. Instead, it lists adverse event reports, which are a standard part of post-marketing surveillance for all vaccines and drugs. These reports alone cannot be used to determine vaccine safety and efficacy without a thorough scientific analysis to establish causality.

Fact-Checking Court Dockets: The claim about needing external sources to fact-check what's on court dockets is misleading. Court dockets are public records, and significant legal admissions would be documented in these records and covered by credible news sources and regulatory bodies.

Pfizer's Counsel Alleged Statement: The statement attributed to Pfizer's counsel in the post, claiming they admitted to delivering "the fraud that the government ordered," is not supported by any evidence from the document or other credible sources. Such a claim, if true, would be a major legal and ethical violation and would likely result in significant legal consequences and public disclosure.

Claim of No Path to Overcome: The assertion that there is "no path to overcome this reality" is based on the preceding unfounded claims. Since the initial claims are not supported by evidence, this conclusion is also unsubstantiated.

In summary, the document you provided does not support the claims made in the post on the biotech chat board. The document is a standard report of post-marketing surveillance data, which is a routine part of monitoring the safety of any approved pharmaceutical product. It is crucial to approach such claims with a critical eye and rely on verified information from reputable sources.

Here ChatGPT analyzed the actual document you provided in regard to your claim:

The document you uploaded is a scan of a Pfizer report, specifically an "Appendix 2.2: Cumulative and Interval Summary Tabulation of Serious and Non-Serious Adverse Reactions from Post-Marketing Data Sources" for the BNT162B2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine). This document lists various adverse events reported during the specified period.

It's important to understand the context and implications of such a document:

Adverse Event Reporting: Adverse event reports do not necessarily mean that the event was caused by the vaccine. They are reports of any health problem that occurs after vaccination, regardless of whether it's believed to be caused by the vaccine. This is part of the safety monitoring process.

Post-Marketing Surveillance: After a vaccine is authorized or approved, ongoing monitoring (post-marketing surveillance) is conducted to detect any rare or long-term adverse events. This surveillance is crucial for maintaining vaccine safety.

Interpretation of Data: The interpretation of such data requires expertise in epidemiology and biostatistics to determine if there is a causal link between the vaccine and reported events. A mere listing of adverse events does not establish causality.

High Number of Vaccinations: Given the widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the absolute number of adverse event reports will be high. This must be contextualized with the number of doses administered.

Regulatory Review: Regulatory agencies like the FDA and EMA continuously review post-marketing data. If a causal link between an adverse event and the vaccine is established, they will take appropriate action, such as updating recommendations or issuing warnings.

Public Access to Information: Making such data publicly accessible is part of the transparency process. It allows for independent review and analysis by experts in the field.

In summary, while the document provides data on reported adverse events, it does not imply that Pfizer admitted to conducting fraudulent trials or that the vaccine is unsafe. The interpretation of adverse event data requires careful analysis to understand its implications for vaccine safety.