Yet again, mainstream media have entirely ignored what should have been front-page news. According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab tribulation in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly studied people to manage the infusions, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.
What concludes the media’s silence all the more remarkable is that this revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. Paul Thacker, investigate writer for The BMJ, writes in his November 2, 2021, report: 1
“Revelations of poverty-stricken traditions at a contract research corporation helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-1 9 vaccine contest raise questions about data integrity and regulatory omission …
[ F] or researchers who were experimenting Pfizer’s vaccine at various places in Texas during that autumn, fast may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who imparted caliber controller checks were overwhelmed by the volume of questions they were finding.”
As noted by Bill Bruckner for transparimed.org: 2
“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the fib is deeply problematic. First and foremost, it makes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory omission over this inquiry … Where are the media outlets questioning the FDA about its oversight manages? Where are the politicians 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 outlets questioning Pfizer about its omission and quality assurance process? …
Third, it subverts confidence in democratic institutions and public health figures because it sacrifices citizens … the impression that mainstream media are deliberately dismissing 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 shielding 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 conductor of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at various locates in Texas.
Jackson frequently “informed her supervisors of good laboratory conduct, case safety concerns and data integrity publications, ” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were discounted, she lastly called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed individual complaints via email.
Jackson was fired last-minute the working day after just two weeks on the job. Harmonizing to her break word, 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 are authentic. Harmonizing to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20 -year career as a clinical experiment coordinator. Thacker excuses: 3
“Jackson was a drilled clinical trouble examiner who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ event in clinical investigate coordination and management.
Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson substantiated several interests late one nighttime, making photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, presented needles discarded in a plastic biohazard pouch instead of a abrupts container box.
Another proved vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants … Jackson told The BMJ that treat assignment verification printouts were being left in participants’ graphs, available to blinded personnel …
In a recording of a convene in late September 2020 between Jackson and two leads a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of corrects they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control.’ In my subconsciou, 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, testifies an email sent by ICON, the contract study making with which Pfizer partnered on the trouble. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email:’ The hope for this study is that all inquiries are addressed within 24 hrs.’
ICON then spotlit over 100 superb inquiries older than three days in yellow-bellied. Samples included two men for which’ Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/ reactions … Per protocol, subjects suffering Grade 3 regional reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding figure as appropriate.’
According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have came’ to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Reports show that difficulties had been going on for weeks.
In a roster of’ action items’ circulated among Ventavia leads in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive determined three site staff members with whom to’ Go over e-diary issue/ forging data, etc.’ One of them was’ verbally counseled for the modification of data and not memo late entryway, ’ a memo indicates.”
FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns
In her grievance to the FDA, Jackson registered a dozen incidents of concern, such as the following 😛 TAGEND
Participants were not is supervised by clinical personnel after receiving the shot
Patients who experienced adverse effects “re not” instantly evaluated
Protocol irregularities “re not” reported here
The Pfizer dose vials were stored at improper temperatures
Laboratory specimen were mislabeled
Not a single one of the problems Jackson raised in her grumble to the FDA were noted or be dealt with Pfizer’s instruct record submitted to the FDA’s members of the advisory committee find December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.
The FDA croaked ahead, awarding the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have threw the restraints 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, exposed the agency exclusively scrutinized nine of the 153 experiment websites, and Ventavia was not one of them. The grievance too seem to have ignored when the FDA granted full approbation 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 added tests — 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 stability of the ordeals. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.
They can feign foolishnes and proclaim to adhere to “the highest scientific, ethical and clinical standards”4 all they want. Those are just texts which, unless backed by consistent war, are completely meaningless. Behind the places, they’re clearly well-aware that their tests are resting on fraudulent foundations.
Pfizer Trial Described as a’ Crazy Mess’
Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after parent very concerned about the unity of the Pfizer trial. Thacker writes: 5
“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with various 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 verse word sent in June the onetime official apologized, saying that’ all that is you complains that was discerned on.’
Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for horror of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research society. Both supported expansive aspects of Jackson’s complaint.
One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical troubles in her vocation, including numerous huge inquiries, but “ve never” knowledge 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 several bags Ventavia absence enough employees to swab all visitation participants who reported COVID-like symptoms, to assessment for infection. Laboratory justified symptomatic COVID-1 9 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted.
( An FDA evaluate memoranda released in August this year states that across the full contest swabs were not taken from 477 parties 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 manufactured to a high standard.”6
Nothing we know so far supportings such the concluding observations. The testing has been far away 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 picture effectiveness fizzles within a handful of months while leaving you more suggestible to SARS-CoV-2 discrepancies and other infections; and producing standards have also been shown paucity, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials. 7
Media Are Manipulated by Pfizer
One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have wholly ignored this whistleblower indication is probably because Pfizer has such a dominant influence 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 indoctrinates young children into thinking that getting the COVID shot will see them superheroes. Never thoughts the facts of the case that get 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, gather organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D ., reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the unity of the COVID jab data.
He points out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not make them accessible until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its fresh data to independent investigators and, without that, there’s no possible action is established that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true-blue and correct.
Without data, it’s not discipline.~ Peter Doshi, Ph.D ., affiliate writer of The British Medical Journal
In other messages, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white collar offenders; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $ 2.3 billion in penalties for sham marketing and health care fraud. 9 Press liberates 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 fulfill 😛 TAGEND
“The evidence we have comes from highly curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal pamphlets. We are uttering big-hearted decisions based on restraint, highly adopted suggestion. A compromised technical process will lead to poor decisions, and there is an opportunity named a bad precedent.”
Doshi accentuates how totally unscientific a process we’re now following. He too points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Mentioning from a 2020 commodity he co-wrote: 10
“Data transparency is not a’ nice to have.’ Claims reached without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed books or in preprints without peer review — are not technical declares.
Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional cultures should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-1 9 makes as being based on science.”
“The point I to attempt to induce is a simple one, ” Doshi said. “The data from COVID inoculations are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just’ asking’ but’ mandating’ millions of people to take these inoculations … Without data, it’s not science.”
Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail
We’ve known the FDA is a captivated busines for at least a decade. None of the issues we’re now understanding are exactly brand-new. We’re now getting 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 gashes at unprecedented record rates, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more punches, more gashes and more fatalities. It’s complicit in cause avoidable fatalities rather than protecting public health. That’s the premium 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 Authorities 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 above reasons reforms don’t work is because they obstruct reforming in the wrong direction 😛 TAGEND
“ … as a result of the recent fatal omissions of regulatory agencies, policy makers and pundits are talking about the same aged’ Regulatory Reform’ again.’ Fill the regulatory agencies with honest people who won’t cave in to special interests.’’ Give them more coin, more power and more people.’
But my experience has shown that by focu all legislative, director and judiciary approval in one regulatory authority really realise it easier for it to be tainted by the industries it regulates.
I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection agency for 30 times and lived through numerous repetitions of’ Regulatory Reform, ’ doing the same’ reforms’ over and over again and expecting different results.
I’ve learned that the way to achieve true regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less fund, less authority, fewer people but more intelligent regulations. The topic of this article is that by dispersing regulatory arbiter, rather than concentrating it, we would become decay 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 affords manufacture the superpower 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 influence over the U.S. authority?
“From my working experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector catches a violation, this only prompts a lengthy composite process with many levels of warning, refresh, appeal, dialogue, 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 busines imposition procedure. It resembles video games of’ channels and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a’ No Parking’ sign. A polouse writes air tickets, and you can either pay the fine or tell it to the judge.
If the EPA wrote the rules for parking contraventions, the man would firstly have to determine if there were sufficient law parking available at a reasonable cost and at a tolerable interval, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner registered 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 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 impels in society( often organizations ), who are beneficiaries society but which are also prone to abuse their power. The purpose of a regulatory busines is to allow the flow of benefits while tightening out the abuse.
In order to do this, Congress presents heads of regulatory agencies broad-minded discretionary capability 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 authority be submitted to a regulatory authority administrator is, in fact, given to the president of the United States to be used as the president participates fit …
[ R] egulatory organizations, by their very nature, can do little that doesn’t adversely affect business, peculiarly large-scale and influential business, and this perturbs a president’s repose.
The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the lubricant fellowships going to the White House screaming’ vitality crisis! ’ … When the FDA wants to fully evaluate a new dope, the pharmaceutical busines gives loosed a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic postpones are expenditure lives.
Regulatory agency hires soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations means obliging opponents of strong and influential people. They learn to be’ team players, ’ an ethic that infiltrates the entire bureau 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 necessarily get fired, but they don’t advanced either; its own responsibilities are transmit to others, and they often leave the agency in abhorrence. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a talent for delay, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially reasonable reasons for accomplishing nothing.”
How Do We Fix It?
The question staring us in the face now is, how do we sterilize these regulatory agencies so that they can operate for the benefit of the public rather than private for-profit interests?
“The reason salaried government regulators is gonna be demoralized is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority, ” Sanjour observed. “Their main objective is keeping their profession and advancing their careers.” Manufactures, meanwhile, believe that pressuring demoralize officials is the only way to protect their business. The explanation, Sanjour shows, is 😛 TAGEND
“ … to remove discretionary opinion from the entrusts of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less susceptible to manufacture influence. The first thing I would suggest is to make use of beings or foundations who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or more powerful than the regulated community.”
Sanjour cites research showing that, far and away, whistleblowers — who risk their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 hoax detecting group, responsible for 19% of hoaxes being brought to light. The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate fraud, was responsible for time 7 %.
So, one highway we could improve the system is by issuing monetary compensations to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary honors for whistleblowers pay benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats, ” Sanjour documents. 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 brought forward by Sanjour is the BP petroleum pour 😛 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’ breaches handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet none of this resulted in any omission 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 chips that the paid regulators granted. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”
A third radical that meets for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Constitutions 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 poison exposures are attained. Sanjour continues: 14
“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary expert from the regulatory government is to shape the rules as simple as possible and to target all appellate offices and assent agreements into the hands of the law courts, just as in our traffic policeman instance.
This could be judicial courtrooms or administrative law courts. Anything to take the discretionary official away from the people who write and enforce the rules and cater one more barrier to industry influence.”
We Need to Return to the Constitution
To do any or all of that, we first need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three sprigs of government: the legislative, exec and judicial chapters. Nonetheless, 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 operates have either been usurped 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 cover all three forks of government. A big one of the purposes of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this happening, ” Sanjour notes.
While making mutates such as those proposed by Sanjour resounds simple enough, the political pushback would be enormous, and would have to be broken through, somehow. Legally, however, 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 expert would then be transmit to another authority, the executive of which would be appointed by Congress , not the president.
“Note that these are all paper modifications. They do not require any relocation, brand-new constructs, new hires, etc. The parts all there are. 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 vacated 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.
Read more: articles.mercola.com