9.    Additional Information

9.1 Mass Formation

  • Dr. Mattias Desmet, Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Ghent, Belgium, has proposed and addressed the current impact of the COVID-19 associated measures in the context of a “Mass Formation Psychosis”/“Mass Formation” . This is a form of mass hypnosis where a significant proportion of the population is unable to process various realities over a forced, propagated narrative. Mass formation is not a new concept. For example, it describes how so many people in Germany succumbed to the Nazi narrative.

  • The following summary, explaining Mass Formation, is based on an interview with Dr. Desmet:

    1. The Requirements for Mass Formation:
      • Lack of social connectedness/social bond
      • Lack of meaning-/sense-making in life
      • Free-floating anxiety – an anxiety that is not connected to mental representation
      • Free-floating aggression/frustration – aggression felt internally but unable to direct towards a specific object/cause.

    2. The Narrative
      • Provides an anchor for the free-floating anxiety – provides a mental representation
      • Leads to cooperation – the anxiety-narrative connection leads to a willingness to cooperate with instructions, no matter how absurd.
      • Leads to connectedness/social connectedness as a number of people cooperate with the instructions.
      • Social connectedness leads to a certain sense of “meaning-/sense-making” of life, even if disordered and extreme.

    3. The Outcomes of Mass Formation:
      • A characteristic of this crowd-behavior is the abandonment of reason leading to absurdity e.g. “pandemic of the unvaccinated”; absurd behaviors – e.g., wearing of masks when alone in a car; wearing of masks when outside. Additional absurdity is published in scientific articles, such as “The results show that faces were considered as most attractive when covered by medical masks and significantly more attractive when occluded with cloth masks than when not occluded.” (Hies and Lewis, 2022). However, these behaviors act as an escape from reality – a symptomatic response,and allay, though inappropriately and temporarily, the pre-existing anxiety mentioned earlier. This behavior bears similarity to the downward spiral of drug addiction (Koob and Le Moal, 2001).

      • A myopic perspective/limited field of attention e.g., extreme focus on virus while ignoring collateral damage e.g., psychological, economical, etc. consequences; focus on COVID-19 related deaths and ignoring treatment and deaths associated with other more serious and prevalent diseases e.g. cardiovascular diseases, diabetes.

      • An emotional “anesthetic” effect/insensitivity to reality. This is due to the symptomatic relief produced by following the narrative, despite the absurdity.

      • An intolerance to dissenting voices – as these threaten the “safe space” created/threatens to expose their insecurity.

      • An aggression towards dissenting voices. The free-floating aggression finds a place in being directed towards those who disagree.

  • Neuroscience and Mass Formation:
    1. Gustave Le Bon – French social psychologist, associated the behavior of the individual within the crowd with lower brain activity, impulsive brain function at the cost of inhibition of higher brain functions:

      “…special characteristics of crowds there are several – such as impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgment and of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of the sentiments…” Pg.10. (Le Bon, 1895/2002)

    2. The brain can be divided into two major regions – upper brain – associated with executive function, and lower brain – associated with more primitive, instinctive behaviors.

      • The role of the upper brain is to ensure the regulation and control of the lower brain functions.

      • Disruption of this dynamic leads to psychopathological behavior (Kovner et al., 2019).

      • The disruption of the dynamic between the upper brain and lower brain is also evident in other pathological behaviors including, but not limited to, substance abuse (Koob and Le Moal, 2001;Koob and Volkow, 2009;Koob and Schulkin, 2019), pornography consumption (Beauregard et al., 2001;Kuhn and Gallinat, 2014;Camilleri et al., 2020), etc.

      • Cannabis, hypnosis and COVID-19: Despite the political and other support evident in relation to cannabis, cannabis is no different from other drugs of abuse in its association with psychopathology (Nunez and Gurpegui, 2002;Lupica et al., 2004;Pistis et al., 2004;Fattore et al., 2010;Murray et al., 2014;Renard et al., 2014;Ballinger et al., 2015;Meier et al., 2015). Moreover, cannabis is known for its hypnotic effects (Monti, 1977;Kesner and Lovinger, 2020). Thus, it is rather interesting that, in addition to the broad legalization of marijuana, and given the hypnotic state of Mass Formation, we suddenly observe scientific literature addressing the potential use of cannabinoids in the treatment of COVID-19 (Nguyen et al., 2021). Additionally, it is interesting to observe Pfizer spending $6.7 billion to enter the medical cannabis industry. Is all this a coincidence? Maybe, or maybe not.

  • While there is not a significant body of scientific literature about the concept of Mass Formation itself per se, this is potentially due to the numerous concepts/subcomponents and fields of investigation that constitute it. These subcomponents, on the other hand, have been extensively documented and simply need to be coalesced e.g.

    • Bagus et al. (2021)

      • “We argue that mass and digital media in connection with the state may have had adverse consequences during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting collective hysteria may have contributed to policy errors by governments not in line with health recommendations. While mass hysteria can occur in societies with a minimal state, we show that there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits to the harm inflicted, such as sacrosanct private property rights. However, mass hysteria can be exacerbated and self-reinforcing when the negative information comes from an authoritative source, when the media are politicized, and social networks make the negative information omnipresent. We conclude that the negative long-term effects of mass hysteria are exacerbated by the size of the state.”

      • “As a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis, there have been several studies examining the adverse psychological effects of state-imposed lockdowns [(Bartoszek et al., 2020;Choi et al., 2020;Solomou and Constantinidou, 2020;Wang et al., 2020a)]. There are also studies that examine the contribution of digital media and the internet to anxiety [(Sigurvinsdottir et al., 2020;Yang et al., 2020)], emotional contagion [(Valenzano et al., 2020),(Belli and Alonso, 2020)],], anxiety transmissions [(Gump and Kulik, 1997),(Zheng et al., 2020)], and nocebo [worsening of symptoms due to expectations of a negative outcome] effects [(Benedetti et al., 2007;Amanzio et al., 2020)]. However, to our knowledge, there has been no study that analyzes how different political institutions and the state affect the development and extension of mass hysteria.”

      • “During the COVID-19 crisis, several authors have argued that from a public health point of view, these invasive interventions such as lockdowns have been unnecessary [(Ioannidis, 17 March 2020; Meunier, 2020; Bendavid et al., 2021; Bjørnskov, 2021)] and, indeed, detrimental to overall public health [(Altman, 2020; Tucker, December 25 2020)]. In fact, prior scientific research on disease mitigation measures during a possible influenza pandemic had warned against such invasive interventions and recommended a more normal social functioning [(Inglesby et al., 2006)]. Moreover, in reaction to past pandemics such as the Asian flu of 1957–1958, there were no lockdowns [(Henderson et al., 2009)], and research before 2020 had opposed lockdowns (Gartz and Janaskie, January 13 2021)].”

  • Mass formation and obedience – The Milgram experiment and what it tells us:
    • The Milgram Experiment: a study of destructive obedience (Milgram, 1963). “It consists of ordering a naive S [subject] to administer increasingly more severe punishment [administering increasingly more powerful shocks for wrong answers] to a victim in the context of a learning experiment”. This experiment potentially explains the immense susceptibility of humans to irrational “obedience” to “authorities”.

    • The Discussion of the paper states that “The experiment yielded two findings that were surprising. The first finding concerns the sheer strength of obedient tendencies manifested in this situation. Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands. To disobey would bring no material loss to the subject; no punishment would ensue. It is clear from the remarks and outward behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim they are often acting against their own values.”

    • “The second unanticipated effect was the extraordinary tension generated by the procedures. One might suppose that a subject would simply break off or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is very far from what happened.”

    • NOTE: If people can respond the way Milgram observed in his study when there was no material loss or punishment, one can imagine the extent of absurdity and cruelty people may be driven towards when the “authorities” intentionally emphasize aspects that impact material loss (e.g., sickness, death, personal wealth, etc.) and utilize threats (veiled or not veiled) to induce submission (e.g., loss of employment, inability to interact with society, including loved ones, inability to travel, etc.).

9.2 Planned event?

9.2.1 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development

In 2010 a report issued by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network (Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network, 2010) addresses four futuristic scenarios founded on two uncertainties (1) Political and Economic Alignment (PEA; on a scale of “Strong” to “Weak”) and (2) Adaptive Capacity (AC; on a scale of “Low” to “High”).

  • The goal of the project is stated to be “to explore the many ways in which technology and development could co-evolve — could both push and inhibit each other — in the future, and then to begin to examine what those possible alternative paths may imply for the world’s poor and vulnerable populations.”

  • The role of the scenarios was stated to be to capture “…a range of future possibilities, good and bad, expected and surprising — but always plausible. Importantly, scenarios are not predictions. Rather, they are thoughtful hypotheses that allow us to imagine, and then to rehearse, different strategies for how to be more prepared for the future — or more ambitiously, how to help shape better futures ourselves”.

  • The 4 scenarios (Lock Step; Clever Together; Hack Attack; Smart Scramble) were formed from the combination/crossing of the two uncertainties addressed above and their scales. For more details please refer to the actual document (Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network, 2010). The scenarios addressed various situations and responses including, but not limited to technology, climate change, government responses, people’s responses, etc.).

  • However, the Lock Step scenario bears a significant similarity to the global events that have taken place in the past year since the beginning of the “COVID-19 outbreak”. The similarities include:

    • a pandemic caused by a “new influenza strain” and described as “extremely virulent and deadly”

    • “…the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal places like train stations and supermarkets.”

    • “…mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders…”

    • “…heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens…”

    • And where it all leads: The report states that “Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified…Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit.”

9.2.2 Event 201

Additional concerns are raised when one considers Event 201 – A Global Pandemic Exercises. As the goal of this document is not geared towards making up the mind of the reader, only limited information is provided, sufficient for the reader to follow up and make up their own mind.

Event 201 is reported to have taken place Friday, October 18, 2019 at The Pierre hotel, New York, NY. The website shows sponsorships from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, World Economic Form and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While confirming credibility and validity has become more difficult in the current age, the fact that this website continues to display the logos of the foundations involved, without any difficulty, in addition to the disclaimer addressed below do not appear to indicate fraud with regards to reality of the event actually happening. What, of course, remains totally unknown is whether the denials of any planned pandemic can be believed.

The exercise is described as:

a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise

A document with recommendations made by the three organizations can also be found on the website. The Event 201 scenario is also described here. Interestingly, the first paragraph on the scenario page states:

Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.

Interestingly, the website has a disclaimer:

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a pandemic tabletop exercise called Event 201 with partners, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Recently, the Center for Health Security has received questions about whether that pandemic exercise predicted the current novel coronavirus outbreak in China. To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise.

Coincidence or planned? Coincidence or a major violation of human rights? Coincidence or a crime against humanity?

9.2.3 NIH Funded Gain-of-Function Research in China

  • Claims have been made that the virus was modified in a lab in China. This seems to be confirmed in the report update submitted to the NIH by EcoHealth which states that the results suggest that “the pathogenicity of SHC014 is higher than other tested bat SARSr-CoVs in transgenic mice that express hACE2” and the NIH response document.
    • The original “limited experiment”
      • was to test “if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. All other aspects of the mice, including the immune system, remained unchanged.”

      • Outcome: “laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus [i.e. modified virus] became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.”

      • The group was required to report immediately an increase in infectivity, specifically “a one log [i.e. 10 fold] increase in growth”. However, “EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant.”

  • Support for gain-of-function experiments has been expressed in scientific communication previously. In this document Fauci addresses the necessity for the scientific community to come together to address the opposition to gain-of-function experiments during the gain-of-function research moratorium (Fauci, 2012). As he puts it “we [the scientists] are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC [Dual Use Research of Concern – see definition in footnote2], but we are not the only players”:
    • “Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.”

    • “When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments [gain-of-function experiments] before they are performed”

  • Additional support for the potential planning and intentional modification of the virus may be present in a recent paper describing the perfect genetic similarity of a section of the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA to a patented sequence (by Moderna; Patent No: US 9,587,003 B2) dating to 2016 (Ambati et al., 2022). While some contest the findings, claiming potential coincidence, as the authors of the paper conclude, “The presence in SARS-CoV-2 of a 19-nucleotide RNA sequence encoding an FCS at amino acid 681 of its spike protein with 100% identity to the reverse complement of a proprietary MSH3 mRNA sequence is highly unusual. Potential explanations for this correlation should be further investigated.”

Figure 15: Top half of image from (Ambati et al., 2022). Full image available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/834808/fviro-02-834808-HTML/image_m/fviro-02-834808-g001.jpg . Red border is mine – added  to draw attention of reader to the similarities address in the paper “Figure 1. The origin of the furin sequence in SARS-CoV-2. Comparison of the protein sequences at the S1/S2 junction in SARS-CoV, RaTG13, and SARS-CoV-2 demonstrating the presence of the furin cleavage site (FCS) PRRA only in SARS-CoV-2. Based on a BLAST search of the 12-nucleotide stretch coding for the FCS PRRA, a 19-nucleotide long identical sequence was identified in the patented (US 958 7003) sequence Seq ID11652. SEQ ID11652 is transcribed to a MSH3 mRNA that appears to be codon optimized for humans. This 19-nucleotide sequence including 12 nucleotides coding for the FCS PRRA, present in the human MSH3 gene might have been introduced into the SARS-CoV-2 genome by the illustrated copy choice recombination mechanism in SARS-CoV-2 infected human cells overexpressing the MSH3 gene.”

Figure 16: Screen capture of parts of the first page of the 2016 Patent submission by Moderna https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/6e/60/8951ab8f4118b5/US9587003.pdf

9.3 Efforts to Control Fertility

Concerns have been raised as to the potential that COVID-19 vaccines may affect fertility. Certainly, some of the evidence indicates such a potential. While there is still a necessity for additional research, the literature below indicates that attempts of population control via the use of vaccines have been in the works for many years and even implemented in some countries. This is what we are aware of. It is obviously difficult/impossible to address what we are not aware of. This is only some of the evidence, and while it does not relate directly to the COVID-19 vaccines, it indicates the necessity for serious consideration of the claims being made of potential harms to fertility.

  • The desire to control fertility and the population with vaccines
    • “Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonable called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.” (Oller et al., 2017) [NOTE: This paper is wrongly listed by Retraction Watch as Retracted/Withdrawn although no reason is provided. This can be verified at the journal website.]

    • “Vaccines have been proposed as one of the strategies for population control…Further scientific inputs are required to increase the efficacy of contraceptive vaccines and establish their safety beyond doubt, before they can become applicable for control of fertility in humans.” (Gupta and Bansal, 2010)

    • “A priest, president of Human Life International (HLI) based in Maryland, has asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)…In addition to the World Health Organization (WHO), other organizations involved in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine using hCG include the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the Population Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State universities. The priest objects that, if indeed the purpose of the mass vaccinations is to prevent pregnancies, women are uninformed, unsuspecting, and unconsenting victims.” (1995)

    • “Vaccines are under development for the control of fertility in males and females…The developments on the anti-hCG vaccine for women are encouraging…It is logical to expect that the source of most of the antigens employed for anti-fertility vaccines in the future will be either synthetic (as for GnRH) or from recombinant DNA techniques (hCG and sperm antigens). Vectors such as vaccinia offer an attractive mode of making the anti-fertility vaccines” (Talwar and Raghupathy, 1989)

  • Additional rhetoric indicating the desire to control fertility
    • In October 2021, Stefan Oelrich, a member of the Board of Management of Bayer and head of the Pharmaceuticals Division spoke at the World Health Summit focused on biotechnological innovation. During his speech: he proudly reported:

      “We also need to focus on what is socially responsible outside of Europe and ensure sustainable action there. We pledged, this past year, to give an additional 100 million women access to contraception in the world. We’ve invested 400 million, this year, into new plants that are dedicated to just produce a long-acting contraceptives for women in low- and middle-income countries…together with him [Bill Gates] and Melinda Gates, we’re working very closely on family planning initiatives as an example for that.”

9.4 Swabs under a microscope

Numerous claims have been made with regards to differences between regular/standard swabs and the COVID swabs. I managed to acquire a sample of both and took the following images using a compound microscope. Differences can be seen, especially at the highest magnification. Please make your own conclusions.

Figure 17: Swab images at various magnifications taken with a compound microscope. Additional information: Standard swab was sterilized using irradiation (R). COVID swabs were sterilized using Ethylene Oxide (EO). For additional information please contact author.

9.5 5G Radiation & COVID-19

  • The WHO website has the following information relating to 5G mobile networks and health:
    • “5G, or fifth generation, is the latest wireless mobile phone technology, first widely deployed in 2019.”

    • “To enable increased performance, 5G will extend into higher frequencies around 3.5 GHz and up to a few tens of GHz.”

    • “Given that the 5G technology is currently at an early stage of deployment, the extent of any change in exposure to radiofrequency fields is still under investigation.”

    • “Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated.”

Figure 18: Electromagnetic spectrum File:Electromagnetic-Spectrum.png. (2020, September 12). Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. Retrieved 03:43, March 2, 2022 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Electromagnetic-Spectrum.png&oldid=456186723. Red shaded bar next to frequency reflects frequency range of 5G networks (Rubik and Brown, 2021)

  • Rubik and Brown (2021)
    • “5G is a protocol that will use high frequency bands and extensive bandwidths of the electromagnetic spectrum in the vast radiofrequency range from 600 MHz to nearly 100 GHz…”

    • “By crossing boundaries between the disciplines of biophysics and pathophysiology, we present evidence that WCR [fifth generation [5G] of wireless communications radiation] may: (1) cause morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that can contribute to hypercoagulation [Interpretation: cause changes to the cells that make the blood cells more prone to coagulate/clot]; (2) impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia [Interpretation: decrease oxygen circulation]; (3) amplify immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation [Interpretation: support abnormal immune responses]; (4) increase cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals resulting in vascular injury and organ damage[Interpretation: increase cellular stress resulting in organ damage]; (5) increase intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways [Interpretation: enhance viral entry and promote inflammation]; and (6) worsen heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders [Interpretation: cause damage to the heart].

    • Relevance for Patients: In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection, reduce their exposure to WCR as much as reasonably achievable until further research better clarifies the systemic health effects associated with chronic WCR exposure.”

    • A paper published in 2020 by Fioranelli and colleagues (Fioranelli et al., 2020), and which has since been retracted, states that “In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells.” As stated, this paper has been retracted. However, in reality there has NOT been sufficient open and genuine discussion in the scientific field in regards to the impact of 5G, especially given the closeness to the microwave range. I have sought to obtain objective information from molecular biologists and other experts about the merit or lack thereof of such claims and will continue my search, updating this document as appropriate.

      • The NIH website on “Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer” states
        • “Many studies have examined the association between non-ionizing EMF exposure and cancer in adults, of which few studies have reported evidence of increased risk”

        • “The interpretation of the finding of increased childhood leukemia risk among children with the highest exposures (at least 0.3 μT) [to power lines] is unclear.”

        • “In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks reviewed electromagnetic field in general, as well as cell phones in particular. It found that, overall, epidemiologic studies of extremely low frequency fields [NOTE: 5G does not classify as “extremely low frequency”] show an increased risk of childhood leukemia with estimated daily average exposures above 0.3 to 0.4 μT, although no mechanisms have been identified and there is no support from experimental studies that explains these findings.”

        • Interpretation: With statements such as this, the NIH only makes one thing clear – at the very least, there is NOT sufficient evidence to either conclusively dismiss the claims that electromagnetic waves are harmful or to conclusively claim that they do not.

Figure 19: Image of a Mesquite Tree in close proximity to a 5G tower (Courtesy of the Truth for Health Foundation) some time after the installation of the tower (07/24/21; left) and some months later (02/21/22; right). Notice how the tree dies from left (closest) to right (furthest) relative to the tower. While the source cannot provide a direct causal link between the 5G tower installation and the death of the tree, the hardiness of the Mesquite tree, the high-frequency (microwave range), short-wavelength emissions from 5G towers, and the research, should at the very least, raise a significant concern. The right photograph has been cropped to provide as similar a perspective as the one on the right.

9.6 COVID-19 “Vaccine”-associated Revenue

There is nothing wrong with legitimate profits. However, there is a problem when money is made at the cost of humanity. The data below is plotted from the quarterly reports put out by Pfizer. The links are provided below. There is something rather disturbing when one observes the stability of revenue associated with the various pharmaceutical/medical products provided by Pfizer over the various quarters reported, until the COVID-19 “outbreak”.

Figure 20: The revenue reported by Pfizer plotted by quarter for 2020 & 20213

2 “Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC), under the United States Government Policy, is life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat, with broad potential consequences, to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security” [my emphasis]. https://www.research.uci.edu/ref/durc/index.html

3 Pfizer Inc. (2021). Pfizer Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2021 Results. Retrieved from https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_financials/2021/q4/Q4-2021-PFE-Earnings-Release.pdf; Pfizer Inc. (2021). Pfizer Reports Second-Quarter 2021 Results. Retrieved from https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_financials/2021/q2/Q2-2021-PFE-Earnings-Release.pdf; Pfizer Inc. (2021). Pfizer Reports Strong First-Quarter 2021 Results. Retrieved from https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_financials/2021/q1/Q1-2021-PFE-Earnings-Release.pdf; Pfizer Inc. (2021). Pfizer Reports Third-Quarter 2021 Results. Retrieved from https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-reports-third-quarter-2021-results