Pfizer Whistleblower Sinks Vaccine Trial Integrity

Posted On Nov 16, 2021 By admin With Comments Off

Yet again, mainstream media have completely ignored what should have been front-page news. According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab experiment in the autumn of 2020, data were falsified, cases were unblinded, the company hired inadequately improved parties to manage the insertions, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.

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

“Revelations of inadequate patterns at a contract experiment company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-1 9 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …

[ F] or researchers who were experimenting Pfizer’s vaccine at several places in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and case security … Staff who handled tone button checks were devastated by the volume of difficulties they were finding.”

As noted by Bill Bruckner for transparimed.org: 2

“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the story is deeply questionable. First and foremost, it tells the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory oversight over this contest … Where are the media shops questioning the FDA about its oversight operations? Where are the legislators calling for an enquiry? …

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

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

So far, this history has been largely confined to the alternative news media. You’ll find a selection of video reports reporting 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 locates in Texas.

Jackson repeatedly “informed her directors of poverty-stricken laboratory control, patient safety concerns and data integrity problems, ” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were ignored, she lastly called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and registered a complaint via email.

Jackson was fired last-minute that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her disconnect letter, management 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 were valid. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20 -year career as a clinical study coordinator. Thacker explains: 3

“Jackson was a qualified clinical trouble listener who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ know in clinical experiment coordination and management.

Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented various difficulties late one night, making photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, demonstrated needles dumped in a plastic biohazard pocket instead of a abrupts container box.

Another indicated vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding players … Jackson told The BMJ that narcotic work proof printouts were being left in participants’ shows, accessible to blinded personnel …

In a recording of a session in late September 2020 between Jackson and two chairmen a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of wrongdoings they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control.’ In my recollection, 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, establishes an email sent by ICON, the contract study band with which Pfizer partnered on the inquiry. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email:’ The expectation for this study is that all inquiries are addressed within 24 hrs.’

ICON then foreground over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow-bellied. Precedents included two men for which’ Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/ actions … Per protocol, subjects suffering Grade 3 regional actions should be contacted. Be confirmed if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the correspond kind as appropriate.’

According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have resulted’ to ascertain further details and purposes of determining whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Certificates show that questions had been going on for weeks.

In a directory of’ action items’ circulated among Ventavia rulers in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive recognized three site staff member with whom to’ Go over e-diary issue/ falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was’ verbally counseled for changing data and not indicating late entering, ’ a tone indicates.”

FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns

In her grievance to the FDA, Jackson rolled a dozen incidents of concern, including the following 😛 TAGEND

Participants were not monitored by clinical organization after receiving the shot

Patients who experienced adverse effects were not immediately evaluated

Protocol fluctuations “re not” being reported

The Pfizer infusion vials were stored at improper temperatures

Laboratory specimens were mislabeled

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

The FDA went onward, granting the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have placed the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At bare 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, revealed relevant agencies simply inspected nine of the 153 trial locates, and Ventavia was not one of them. The grievance likewise seem to have neglected when the FDA conceded full approving 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 heightened. Despite that, Pfizer has since then contracted Ventavia to conduct no less than four additional ordeals — 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 undercutting the stability of the tribulations. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.

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

Pfizer Trial Described as a’ Crazy Mess’

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

“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a textbook meaning direct in June the onetime official apologized, saying that’ all that is you complains that was distinguished on.’

Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for panic of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly tie experiment community. Both approved broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint.

One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical visitations in her vocation, including many gigantic experiments, but had never knew 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 ordinary — the things that were allowed and expected’ …

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

( An FDA review memo released in August this year is to say that in all the regions of the full experiment swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases 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 explanations 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, claimed responsibility for the COVID shots have experienced “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, efficient and fabricated to a high standard.”6

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

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

Media Are Manipulated by Pfizer

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

One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have fully discounted this whistleblower affidavit is probably because Pfizer has such a dominating 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 acquire them superheroes. Never knowledge the facts of the case that getting 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, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D ., discussed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity 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 method to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.

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

In other oaths, we’re expected to simply make the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the listing of white collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $ 2.3 billion in fines for sham market and health care hoax. 9 Press freeings 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 likewise spoke at the intersect 😛 TAGEND

“The evidence we have comes from highly curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal publications. We are doing big-hearted decisions based on restriction, most selected evidence. A endangered scientific process will lead to poor decisions, and there is an opportunity placed a bad precedent.”

Doshi stresses how thoroughly unscientific a process we’re now following. He likewise notes that physicians have an ethical is under an obligation not recommend a medication for which they have no data. Excerpting from a 2020 clause he co-wrote: 10

“Data transparency is not a’ nice to have.’ Claims obliged without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed pamphlets or in preprints without peer review — are not scientific declares.

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

“The point I am trying to reach is a simple one, ” 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 agency for at least a decade. Nothing of the issues we’re now find are accurately new. We’re now going a close-up view of just how hazardous the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma really is.

Americans are dying from COVID jab harms at unprecedented record frequencies, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more pokings, more harms and more fatalities. It’s complicit in induce avoidable deaths rather than protecting public health. That’s the cost we’re now paying for not cleaning up the agency and closing the revolving door between regulators and manufacture earlier.

In “Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Organizations Don’t Work, ”1 1 published in May 2012 — nearly a decade ago — William Sanjour discussed the failures of regulatory reform. He notes that the reason reforms don’t work is because they obstruct reforming in the wrong direction 😛 TAGEND

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

But my experience has shown that by concentrating all legislative, director and judiciary approval in one regulatory bureau time builds it easier for it to be distorted by the industries it regulates.

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

I’ve learned that the way to achieve true-blue regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less fund, less power, fewer parties but more intelligent regulations. The theme of this article is that by dispersing regulatory expert, rather than concentrating it, we would originate immorality 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 commits industry the capability of government.” Can there be any doubt that the FDA, as an agency captured by Big Pharma in general and Pfizer including , now manipulates superpower over the U.S. government?

“From my own experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector knows a violation, this only initiations a lengthy complex process with many levels of warning, evaluate, appeal, discussion, and adjudication before any action is taken( or, more often, shunned ), ” Sanjour writes. 12

“See the labyrinthine flow chart1 3 for an example of an bureau prosecution procedure. It resembles a game of’ gutters and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a’ No Parking’ sign. A polouse writes a ticket, and you can either pay the fine or be said that it to the judge.

If the EPA wrote the rules for parking breaches, the officer would first have to determine if there were sufficient legal parking available at a reasonable cost and at a acceptable interval, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner evidenced 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 throw in enough loopholes. The is the subject of the intricacy is to hide the loopholes.” Sanjour went on to explain 😛 TAGEND

“Regulatory authorities are created by Congress in order to control some potent actions in civilization( often corporations ), which benefit civilization but which are also prone to abuse their power. The purpose of a regulatory organization is to allow the flow of benefits while straining out the abuse.

In order to do this, Congress throws executives of regulatory agencies expansive discretionary capability to write regulations for industries for which they are responsible. The mistake in the system is that the executive is appointed by the president … Thus any discretionary official given to a regulatory authority administrator is, in fact, given to the president of the United Position to be used as the president watches fit …

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

The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the petroleum fellowships going to the White House screaming’ vitality crisis! ’ … When the FDA wants to exhaustively evaluate a brand-new medicine, the pharmaceutical companionship causes released a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic delays are expensing lives.

Regulatory agency works soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations implies impelling opponents of strong and influential parties. They learn to be’ team players, ’ an ethic that infiltrates the entire busines 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 consequently get fired, but they don’t advance either; its own responsibilities are transmit to others, and they often leave the agency in antipathy. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a aptitude for delay, obfuscation, and come through here with superficially conceivable reasons for accomplishing nothing.”

How Do We Fix It?

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

“The reason salaried government regulators can be debased is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority, ” Sanjour mentioned. “Their main objective is keeping their responsibility and advancing their careers.” Manufactures, meanwhile, believe that pressuring taint officials is the only way to protect their business. The refute, Sanjour recommends, is 😛 TAGEND

“ … to remove discretionary judging from the hands of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less suggestible to manufacture force. The first thing I would suggest is to make use of parties or conservatories who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or more powerful than the regulated community.”

Sanjour quotes research demonstrating that, far and away, whistleblowers — who danger their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 impostor detecting radical, responsible for 19% of frauds being brought to light. The U.S. Insurance and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate forgery, was responsible for precisely 7 %.

So, one highway we could improve the system is by issuing monetary compensations to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary wages for whistleblowers pay benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats, ” Sanjour memoranda. Insurance companies can also play an important role, as they are far less likely to overlook safety shortcuts that can result in disaster. An illustration given by Sanjour is the BP lubricant shed 😛 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 penalties. Between June 2007 and February 2010, BP refineries in Texas and Ohio accounted for 97% of the’ egregious, 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 trimmeds that the paid regulators tolerated. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”

A third radical that compiles for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Societies such as Citizens for Health and Environmental Justice educates 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 harmful shows are experienced. Sanjour continues: 14

“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary sovereignty from the regulatory bureaucracy is to stimulate the rules as simple as possible and to situate all appellate offices and allow agreements into the handwritings of the law courts, just as in our traffic policeman illustration.

This could be judicial laws or administrative law courts. Anything to make the discretionary expert away from the people who write and enforce the rules and add one more barrier to manufacture influence.”

We Need to Return to the Constitution

To do any or all of that, we firstly need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in conformity with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three forks of government: the legislative, exec and judicial limbs. However, when regulatory agencies were assembled, 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 capacities have either been usurped by regulatory agencies, and hence the executive branch.

“Thus, despite the desires of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch now includes a great many regulatory agencies whose offices cover all three fields of government. A gigantic part of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this information, ” Sanjour notes.

While making varies such as those proposed by Sanjour resonates 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 divested of its authority to write rules and implement the law. That jurisdiction is be transferred to another agency, the head 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 structures, new hires, etc. The parts all currently exist. They are merely 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 semblance 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.