Pfizer Whistleblower Sinks Vaccine Trial Integrity

Yet again, mainstream media have perfectly ignored what should have been front-page news. Harmonizing to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab ordeal in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, cases were unblinded, the company hired poorly studied people to administer the infusions, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.

What induces the media’s silence all the more remarkable is that this revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. Paul Thacker, investigative columnist for The BMJ, writes in his November 2, 2021, report: 1

“Revelations of poverty-stricken traditions at a contract research firm helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-1 9 inoculation test raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …

[ F] or researchers who were experimenting Pfizer’s vaccine at various areas in Texas during that autumn, speeding may have come at the cost of data integrity and case refuge … Staff who attended tone restrain checks were overtaken by the volume of troubles they were finding.”

As noted by Bill Bruckner for 2

“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the narration is deeply problematic. First and foremost, it gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory oversight over this trouble … Where are the media channels questioning the FDA about its omission processes? Where are the legislators calling for an enquiry? …

Second, it causes Pfizer off the hook for apparently failing to adequately oversee the operations of its subcontractor … Where are the media stores questioning Pfizer about its oversight and quality assurance manages? …

Third, it threatens confidence in democratic institutions and public health people because it applies citizens … the impression that mainstream media are deliberately dismissing a big story in order to avoid fueling vaccine hesitancy.”

So far, this story has been largely confined to the alternative news media. You’ll find a selection of video reports plastering the whistleblower’s testimony in the sections below.

Research Organization Falsified Data in Pfizer Trial

The whistleblower in question is Brook Jackson, a former regional head of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at various areas in Texas.

Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of inadequate laboratory conduct, case safety concerns and data integrity controversies, ” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were rejected, she ultimately called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed individual complaints via email.

Jackson was fired last-minute that day after just two weeks on the job. Harmonizing to her segregation word, handling decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all. She has provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns are authentic. Harmonizing to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20 -year career as a clinical research coordinator. Thacker interprets: 3

“Jackson was a trained clinical contest supervisor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ know-how in clinical investigate coordination and management.

Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several subjects late one nighttime, making photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, indicated needles dumped in a plastic biohazard suitcase instead of a abrupts receptacle box.

Another registered inoculation packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding players … Jackson told The BMJ that medicine assignment verification printouts were being left in participants’ planneds, accessible to blinded personnel …

In a recording of a session in late September 2020 between Jackson and two heads a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control.’ In my thought, it’s something new every day, ’ a Ventavia executive says.’ We know that it’s significant.’

Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry inquiries, evidences an email sent by ICON, the contract experiment administration with which Pfizer partnered on the experiment. ICON prompted Ventavia in a September 2020 email:’ The anticipation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24 hrs.’

ICON then highlighted over 100 exemplary inquiries older than three days in yellow. Precedents included two mortals for which’ Subject has reported with Severe indications/ reactions … Per protocol, subjects knowing Grade 3 regional actions should be contacted. Be confirmed if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding shape as appropriate.’

According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have arose’ to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Reports is demonstrating that questions had been going on for weeks.

In a listing of’ action items’ circulated among Ventavia supervisors in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive related three site staff members with whom to’ Go over e-diary issue/ falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was’ verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late introduction, ’ a notation indicates.”

FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns

In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following πŸ˜› TAGEND

Participants were not monitored by clinical organization after receiving the shot

Patients who experienced adverse impact were not immediately estimated

Protocol deviations “re not” being reported

The Pfizer infusion vials were stored at improper temperatures

Laboratory samples were mislabeled

Not a single one of the problems Jackson raised in her objection to the FDA were noted or be dealt with Pfizer’s briefing report submitted to the FDA’s members of the advisory committee engagement December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.

The FDA vanished onward, awarding the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have framed the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At naked minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.

What’s more, the FDA’s summary of its inspections of the Pfizer trial, published in August 2021, uncovered the agency simply scrutinized nine of the 153 inquiry websites, and Ventavia was not one of them. The objection likewise appears to have been neglected when the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, Pfizer/ BioNTech’s COVID shot that is not yet available.

Pfizer is also in on the cover-up. Shortly after Jackson’s firing, Pfizer was notified of the problems she’d collected. Despite that, Pfizer has since then contracted Ventavia to conduct no less than four additional visitations — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial, and an RSV vaccine trial.

So, clearly, Pfizer is not opposed to contractors falsifying data or otherwise subverting the soundnes of the troubles. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.

They can feign knowledge and proclaim to adhere to “the highest scientific, ethical and clinical standards”4 all they want. Those are just messages which, unless backed by consistent action, are completely meaningless. Behind the panoramas, they’re clearly well-aware that their visitations are resting on fraudulent foundations.

Pfizer Trial Described as a’ Crazy Mess’

Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after creating concerns about the stability of the Pfizer trial. Thacker writes: 5

“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with various onetime Ventavia employees who all left or got fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a verse meaning ship in June the onetime official defended, saying that’ all that is you complains that was spot on.’

Two former Ventavia works spoke to The BMJ anonymously for panic of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knitting investigate society. Both established wide-ranging the various aspects of Jackson’s complaint.

One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical contests in her career, including numerous enormous experiments, but “ve never” experienced such a’ helter skelter’ work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial.’ I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever, ’ she told The BMJ.’ It just seemed like something a little different from regular — the things that were allowed and expected’ …

After Jackson left the company problems persevered at Ventavia, this employee said. In various events Ventavia absence enough employees to swab all contest participants who reported COVID-like evidences, to experiment for illnes. Laboratory demonstrated symptomatic COVID-1 9 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted.

( An FDA re-examine memoranda released after August this year is to say that in all the regions of the full visitation swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected an instance of symptomatic COVID-1 9.)’ I don’t think it was good clean data, ’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial.’ It’s a crazy mess.’”

Such announcements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities and the mainstream media. Most, like federal state minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, effective and fabricated to a high standard.”6

Nothing we know so far reinforces such a conclusion. The testing has been far from strict and has not been independently verified.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System( VAERS) data depict they’re shockingly far from safe; real-world data register effectiveness lessens within a handful of months while leaving you more prone to SARS-CoV-2 discrepancies and other illness; and producing standards have also been shown shortfall, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials. 7

Media Are Manipulated by Pfizer

propaganda from a pharmaceutical company

>>>>> Click here <<<<<

One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have completely dismissed this whistleblower testimony is probably because Pfizer has such a command affect over them. Thacker told blogger Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D ., 8 “Pfizer has such a huge PR machine, they have basically captivated the media, they’ve hypnotized the media.”

Pfizer’s PR department is also hard at work trying to hypnotize the public. The Tv ad above is perhaps one of the most offensive. In it, Pfizer propagandizes young children into thinking that getting the COVID shot will determine them superheroes. Never mind the facts of the case that going the shot could kill or permanently injure them.

You Cannot’ Follow the Science’ if There Are No Data

The video at the top of this article is a short extract from a November 2, 2021, assemble organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D ., scrutinized some of the many concerns professionals have about the stability of the COVID jab data.

He points out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its fresh data to independent the researchers and, without that, there’s no possible way is established that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true-blue and correct.

Without data, it’s not discipline.~ Peter Doshi, Ph.D ., accompanied journalist of The British Medical Journal

In other terms, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the roll of white collar crimes; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $ 2.3 billion in punishments for sham marketing and health forgery. 9 Press liberations are not science. They’re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to locate our decisions about the COVID shot.

As noted by Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford’s School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Centre, who also spoke at the cros πŸ˜› TAGEND

“The evidence we have comes from most curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal booklets. We are stirring big decisions based on restriction, highly selected ground. A settlement scientific process will lead to poor decisions, and it may placed a bad precedent.”

Doshi anxieties how thoroughly unscientific a process we’re now following. He too points out that doctors have an ethical is under an obligation not recommend a medication for which they have no data. Repeating from a 2020 commodity he co-wrote: 10

“Data transparency is not a’ nice to have.’ Claims met without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed books or in preprints without peer review — are not technical argues.

Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional cultures should publicly be said that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-1 9 products as being based on science.”

“The point I to attempt to realize is very simple, ” Doshi said. “The data from COVID vaccines are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just’ asking’ but’ mandating’ millions of people to make these inoculations … Without data, it’s not science.”

Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail

We’ve known the FDA is a captivated bureau for at least a decade. None of the issues we’re now assuring are exactly new. We’re now going a close-up view of just how risky the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma really is.

Americans are dying from COVID jab traumata at unprecedented record proportions, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more jabs, more traumata and more demises. It’s complicit in make avoidable demises rather than protecting public health. That’s the cost we’re now paying for not cleaning up the agency and shutting the revolving door between regulators and industry earlier.

In “Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Business Don’t Work, ”1 1 issued in may 2012 — nearly a decade ago — William Sanjour discussed the failures of regulatory reform. He points out that the reason reforms don’t work is because they remain reforming in the wrong direction πŸ˜› TAGEND

“ … as a result of the recent cataclysmic flops of regulatory agencies, politicians and pundits are talking about the same old-fashioned’ Regulatory Reform’ again.’ Fill the regulatory agencies with honest people who won’t cave in to special interests.’’ Give them more fund, more jurisdiction and more people.’

But my experience has shown that by centralize all legislative, ministerial and judiciary sovereignty in one regulatory bureau really attains it easier for it to be subverted by the industries it regulates.

I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection agency for 30 times and lived through countless hertzs of’ Regulatory Reform, ’ doing the same’ reforms’ over and over again and expecting different results.

I’ve learned that the way to achieve genuine regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less coin, little jurisdiction, fewer parties but more intelligent regulations. The theme of this article is that by dispersing regulatory government, rather than concentrating it, we would attain fraud more difficult and facilitate more sensible regulation.”

Sanjour points out that regulators being captured by the parties they’re supposed to regulate is far more dangerous than having no regulatory agencies at all, because “capture utters manufacture the power of government.” Can there be any doubt that the FDA, as an bureau captured by Big Pharma in general and Pfizer in particular , now wields power over the U.S. government?

“From my working experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector acquires human rights violations, this only triggers a tedious complex process with many levels of warning, recollect, plead, talk, and adjudication before any action is taken( or, more often, eschewed ), ” Sanjour writes. 12

“See the labyrinthine flow chart1 3 for an example of an authority enforcement procedure. It resembles a game of’ ramps and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a’ No Parking’ sign. A policeman writes a ticket, and you can either pay the fine or tell it to the judge.

If the EPA wrote the rules for parking misdemeanors, the patrolman would firstly have to determine if there were sufficient law parking is accessible to a reasonable cost and at a acceptable distance, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner presented up so that he could negotiate a settlement agreement.”

Regulatory Complexity Intentionally Hides Loopholes

Even more disturbing, Sanjour reveals that, when he was writing regulations for the EPA, he was “told on more than one occasion to make sure I put in fairly loopholes. The purpose of the complexity is to hide the loopholes.” Sanjour went on to explain πŸ˜› TAGEND

“Regulatory authorities are created by Congress in order to control some powerful impels in culture( frequently firms ), who are beneficiaries civilization but which are also prone to abuse their power. The is the subject of a regulatory enterprise is to allow the flow of benefits while tightening out the abuse.

In order to do this, Congress renders administrators of regulatory agencies expansive discretionary dominance to write regulations for industries for which they are responsible. The breach in the system is that the administrator is appointed by the president … Thus any discretionary jurisdiction be submitted to a regulatory agency executive is, in fact, given to the president of the United Position to be used as the president learns fit …

[ R] egulatory agencies, by their very nature, can do little that doesn’t adversely affect business, peculiarly big and influential business, and this agitates a president’s repose.

The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the lubricant companies going to the White House screaming’ vigour crisis! ’ … When the FDA wants to fully evaluate a brand-new remedy, the pharmaceutical companionship lets liberated a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic retardations are expensing lives.

Regulatory agency works soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations signifies becoming enemies of potent and influential beings. They learn to be’ team players, ’ an ethic that penetrates the part agency without ever being transmitted through written or even oral instructions.

People who like to get things done, who need to see concrete results for their efforts, don’t last long. They don’t certainly get fired, but they don’t boost either; its own responsibilities are transmit to others, and they often leave the agency in resentment. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a knack for delay, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially probable reasons for accomplishing nothing.”

How Do We Fix It?

The question staring us in the face now is, how do we correct these regulatory agencies so that they can operate for the benefit of the public rather than private for-profit interests?

“The reason salaried authority regulators can be tainted is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority, ” Sanjour memo. “Their main objective is keeping their undertaking and advancing their careers.” Manufactures, meanwhile, believe that pressuring demoralize officials is the only way to protect their business. The answer, Sanjour suggests, is πŸ˜› TAGEND

“ … to remove discretionary belief from the pass of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less prone to manufacture influence. The first thing I is an indication of is to make use of people or organizations who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or more powerful than the regulated community.”

Sanjour cites experiment demonstrating that, by far, whistleblowers — who risk their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 hoax detecting radical, is in charge of 19% of hoaxes being brought to light. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate impostor, has responsibility for time 7 %.

So, one direction we could improve the system is by issuing monetary honors to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary compensations for whistleblowers offer benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats, ” Sanjour greenbacks. Insurance companies can also play an important role, as they are far less likely to overlook safety shortcuts that can result in disaster. An precedent brought forward by Sanjour is the BP lubricant flood πŸ˜› TAGEND

“BP has admitted, between 2005 and 2010, to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud and paid $373 million in punishments. Between June 2007 and February 2010, BP refineries in Texas and Ohio accounted for 97% of the’ shocking, willful’ misdemeanours handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet none of this resulted in any oversight of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that blew up …

If BP had been required to carry a $10 billion insurance policy for an oil spill, I’m sure the insurance company would not have allowed the penny-pinching short slasheds that the paid regulators given. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”

A third group that shapes for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Administrations such as Citizens for Health and Environmental Justice teaches citizens how to get involved in the enforcement of regulations, and even more can be done in that regard.

For example, the EPA could sponsor civilian testing and equip citizens are living below polluted areas with resources to conduct their own testing and report back if noxious shows are found. Sanjour continues: 14

“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary sovereignty from the regulatory administration is to see the rules as simple as possible and to arrange all appellate roles and approval agreements into the mitts of the law courts, just as in our traffic patrolman example.

This could be judicial laws or administrative law courts. Anything to take the discretionary arbiter away from the people who write and enforce the rules and stipulate one more barrier to industry influence.”

We Need to Return to the Constitution

To do any or all of that, we firstly need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three disciplines of government: the legislative, manager and judicial chapters. However, when regulatory agencies were constituted, we diverted from this structure.

Regulations are a type of laws, and as such they should come from the legislative branch. But regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch. Judicial functions have either been wrested by regulatory agencies, and hence the executive branch.

“Thus, despite the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch now includes a great many regulatory agencies whose roles encompass all three chapters of authority. A huge one of the purposes of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this detail, ” Sanjour notes.

While making reforms such as those proposed by Sanjour clangs simple enough, the political pushback would be enormous, and would have to be broken through, somehow. Legally, nonetheless, it would be a reasonably simple affair.

All Congress would need to do is amend the law such that the agency administrator is deprived of its authority to write rules and implement the law. That official would then be transferred to another bureau, the executive of which would be appointed by Congress , not the president.

“Note that these are all paper mutates. They is not require any relocation, brand-new builds, new hires, etc. The operates all currently exist. They are simply rearranged, ” Sanjour says.

At present, we can no longer overlook the FDA’s corruption. It’s costing too many lives. They have entirely abandoned any appearance of working for the public good. How we get rid of them and fix the problem will become an increasingly pressing question as we move forward.


Read more:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *