{"id":12448,"date":"2022-01-02T07:25:20","date_gmt":"2022-01-02T12:25:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/?p=12448"},"modified":"2022-01-02T07:25:20","modified_gmt":"2022-01-02T12:25:20","slug":"pfizer-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-data-cover-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/pfizer-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-data-cover-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Pfizer Whistleblower Exposes Vaccine Data Cover-Up"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2022\/01\/02\/how-to-overcome-fear-addiction.aspx\">https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2022\/01\/02\/how-to-overcome-fear-addiction.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>According to Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer\u2019s Phase 3 COVID jab trial, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind<\/li><li>The FDA did not follow up on Jackson\u2019s complaint or investigate the allegations before granting full licensing to Pfizer\u2019s Comirnaty shot<\/li><li>FDA now wants 75 years to drip out the data it relied on to grant full licensing to Comirnaty<\/li><li>An adverse event report from Pfizer, covering December 2020 through the end of February 2021, shows the shot causes severe and often long-term, unresolved injuries<\/li><li>Pfizer\u2019s data also show the shot causes severe injuries in pregnant and nursing women. Based on these data alone, which the FDA was aware of at the end of April 2021, the Pfizer shot should have been pulled from the market<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer\u2019s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed.Her testimony was published November 2, 2021, in The British Medical Journal by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, who noted that:<sup>1<\/sup><em>\u201c[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer\u2019s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety \u2026 Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.\u201d<\/em>December 2, 2021, The Last American Vagabond interviewed Jackson (video above<sup>2<\/sup>) about what she saw while working on Pfizer\u2019s trial. Jackson is a trained clinical trial auditor with more than 15 years\u2019 experience in clinical research coordination and management.She had previously held a director of operations position before she was hired in early September 2020 by the Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer\u2019s COVID jab at several sites in Texas. Right from the start, Jackson was struck by the chaotic nature of the operation.She also felt the informed consent was inadequate, considering the novel nature of the mRNA gene transfer technology. On top of that, she found the crash cart contained expired medications, and some important emergency medications \u2014 were a participant to suffer an acute adverse event \u2014 were missing entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Data Forgery Among the Many Problems Identified<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Jackson claims she repeatedly informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns and data integrity issues. When she realized her concerns were ignored, she finally filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Participants were not monitored by clinical staff after receiving the shot<\/li><li>Patients who experienced adverse effects were not promptly evaluated and protocol deviations were not being reported<\/li><li>The Pfizer injection vials were stored at improper temperatures<\/li><li>Laboratory specimens were mislabeled<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Later that same day, Jackson was fired. According to her separation letter, management decided she was \u201cnot a good fit\u201d for the company. According to Jackson, this was the first time she\u2019d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator. As noted by Thacker:<sup>3<\/sup><em>\u201cIn a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn\u2019t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. \u2018In my mind, it\u2019s something new every day,\u2019 a Ventavia executive says. \u2018We know that it\u2019s significant.\u2019<\/em><em>Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organization with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: \u2018The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.\u2019<\/em><em>ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which \u2018Subject has reported with Severe symptoms\/reactions \u2026 Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.\u2019<\/em><em>According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred \u2018to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.\u2019 Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.<\/em><em>In a list of \u2018action items\u2019 circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson\u2019s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to \u2018Go over e-diary issue\/falsifying data, etc.\u2019 One of them was \u2018verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,\u2019 a note indicates.\u201d<\/em>Jackson\u2019s disclosures were recently featured in the Italian documentary, \u201cPfizergate.\u201d<sup>4,5<\/sup>&nbsp;The documentation she gathered are available for download on the COVID Vaccine Reaction\u2019s website.<sup>6<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ventavia, Pfizer and FDA Ignore Accusations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Strangely enough, the extent of Ventavia\u2019s effort to defend itself has been to deny that Jackson ever worked on the Pfizer trial \u2014 a charge that is verifiably false, as she has documentation proving she was assigned to work on the trial.<sup>7<\/sup>Pfizer has also remained mum on the issue. The company did not reply to any of The BMJ\u2019s questions, one of which was whether Ventavia\u2019s data were incorporated into Pfizer\u2019s safety and efficacy analyses.We do know, however, that none of the problems Jackson raised in her complaint to the FDA were noted or addressed in Pfizer\u2019s briefing document, submitted to the FDA\u2019s advisory committee meeting December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.The FDA went ahead and gave the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson\u2019s complaint, which ought to have put the brakes on the FDA\u2019s authorization. At bare minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.The BMJ has tried to get answers from the FDA as to why it has not inspected any of Ventavia\u2019s trial sites in the wake of Jackson\u2019s accusations, and whether other complaints about the trial have been received. An FDA spokesperson told The BMJ the agency cannot comment as it is \u201can ongoing matter,\u201d whatever that means.The FDA did say, though, that it has \u201cfull confidence in the data that were used to support the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine authorization and the Comirnaty approval.\u201d Considering they\u2019ve not investigated Jackson\u2019s complaints, their vote of confidence doesn\u2019t strike me as particularly convincing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Other Ventavia Witnesses Speak Out<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Jackson wasn\u2019t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after raising concerns about the integrity of the Pfizer trial. According to Thacker, several other Ventavia employees either left or were fired. Among them is a Ventavia official who had participated in the late September meeting cited above. Thacker writes:<sup>8<\/sup><em>\u201cIn a text message sent [to Jackson] in June the former official apologized, saying that \u2018everything that you complained about was spot on.\u2019 Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson\u2019s complaint.<\/em><em>One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a \u2018helter skelter\u2019 work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer\u2019s trial.<\/em><em>\u2018I\u2019ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,\u2019 she told The BMJ. \u2018It just seemed like something a little different from normal \u2014 the things that were allowed and expected.\u2019\u201d<\/em>According to these whistleblowers, problems persisted after Jackson\u2019s firing. One of them claims there were, on several occasions, not enough staff to test trial participants who reported COVID-like symptoms.Laboratory confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was the primary endpoint of the trial, so this was a crucial task. An FDA review memorandum from August 2021 states that 477 trial participants with suspected COVID-19 were not tested for infection. \u201cI don\u2019t think it was good clean data,\u201d the former Ventavia employee told Thacker. \u201cIt\u2019s a crazy mess.\u201dSuch statements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities and the mainstream media. Most, like federal health minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone \u201crigorous, independent testing\u201d to ensure they\u2019re \u201csafe, effective and manufactured to a high standard.\u201d<sup>9<\/sup>Nothing we know so far supports such a conclusion. The testing has been far from rigorous and has not been independently verified.Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data show they\u2019re shockingly far from safe; real-world data show effectiveness wanes within a handful of months while leaving you more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 variants and other infections; and manufacturing standards have also been shown lacking, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials.<sup>10<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Science Depends on Rigorous Data Collection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The video above is a short extract from a November 2, 2021, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which Peter Doshi, Ph.D., associate editor of The BMJ, reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity of the COVID jab data.He pointed out that Pfizer\u2019s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its raw data to independent investigators and, without that, there\u2019s no possible way to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.In other words, we\u2019re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines for fraudulent marketing and health care fraud.<sup>11<\/sup>&nbsp;Press releases are not science. They\u2019re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to base our decisions about the COVID kill shot.Doshi stressed how utterly unscientific a process we\u2019re now following. He also points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Quoting from a 2020 article he co-wrote:<sup>12<\/sup><em>\u201cData transparency is not a \u2018nice to have.\u2019 Claims made without access to the data \u2014 whether appearing in peer reviewed publications or in preprints without peer review \u2014 are not scientific claims.<\/em><em>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-19 products as being based on science.\u201d<\/em>\u201cThe point I am trying to make is very simple,\u201d Doshi said. \u201cThe data from COVID vaccines are not available and won\u2019t be available for years. Yet, we are not just \u2018asking\u2019 but \u2018mandating\u2019 millions of people to take these vaccines \u2026 Without data, it\u2019s not science.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">FDA Wants 75 Years to Release Pfizer Trial Data<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In September 2021, a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FDA to obtain the documentation used to approve Comirnaty, including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and lists of active and inactive ingredients.In their FOIA application, the PHMPT asked the agency to expedite release of the documents \u2014 a reasonable request, considering we have no raw data and the shots are being pushed on children as young as 5. When, after a month, the FDA still had not responded to the FOIA request, the PHMPT sued.<sup>13<\/sup>The FDA initially asked the judge to allow them to delay the full release of all documents \u2014 a total of 329,000 pages \u2014 until 2076, doling out just 500 pages per month. The judge agreed.A short while later, the FDA claimed it found another 59,000 pages, which would necessitate tacking on another 20 years.<sup>14<\/sup>\u00a0The full release, according to the FDA, can\u2019t be completed until 2096, at which time most of us will be dead and buried. As noted by Aaron Siri, the lawyer working on the case on behalf of the PHMPT:<sup>15<\/sup><em>&#8220;If you find what you are reading difficult to believe \u2014 that is because it is dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.&#8221;<\/em>All of that said, the initial release of some 92 pages are so damning, we won\u2019t need hundreds of thousands of pages to make an assessment as to the safety of these shots. In fact, the data are so incredibly bad, it raises serious questions about how the FDA could possibly conclude that the Pfizer shot is safe enough to use, especially on pregnant women and children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>https:\/\/articles.mercola.com\/sites\/articles\/archive\/2022\/01\/02\/how-to-overcome-fear-addiction.aspx According to Brook Jackson, a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer\u2019s Phase 3 COVID jab trial, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind The FDA did not follow up on Jackson\u2019s complaint or investigate the allegations before &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/pfizer-whistleblower-exposes-vaccine-data-cover-up\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Pfizer Whistleblower Exposes Vaccine Data Cover-Up<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[23,56,4,29,25],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12448"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12448"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12448\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12449,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12448\/revisions\/12449"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}