There are plenty of arrests and resignations. We keep tracking them here but not in one post. Just because we dont see it at the highest level (since the sting is ongoing) and we dont see it in headlines does not mean people are not being held accountable. Keep heart, its all happening. The final step has to be this painful for this lesson to be remembered by people for generations to come.
Oh don't worry, big pharma will send the cleanup crew in to neutralize the whistleblower within the week. He/she won't escape the consequences of outing their fake studies and fake evidence for getting this population control shot into every man woman and child pin the planet. Whistleblower should have read the employment contact as I'm pretty sure they write the "you agree to swift neutralization if you are found to be blowing any whistles (physical out metaphorical)" clause directly into the employment agreement.
Oh wait, you meant when does big pharma get consequences. Well short answer is it doesn't. Long answer is big pharma will create a shell Corp with minimal assets and will assign to it the patents, the management (via subcontract) and/or the liabilities for the poison vaccines and the drug trials for the FDA approvals. Thus they will let the lawsuit go against said shell company so everyone can sue it and obtain pyrrhic victory while the pharmaceutical company will continue on without issue. The FDA drug approval group knows full well to not review the data from the trials in too much detail when the drug is from one of the major 3 pharmaceutical companies.
In my opinion, if the drug is from a smaller company, then the review process is much more detailed and intentionally designed to put up roadblocks and slow walk approval. That way the big three pharmaceuticals will have more time and leverage to propose buying out the small company at minimal cost and/or buying out the patents underlying if they just want only the one drug.
Hopefully this time it goes drastically differently and we can break up these companies, and put the execs and board on trial on down to the scientists who falsified data.
None of this is a surprise. Pfizer has already paid the biggest criminal fine in history for FRAUD. They shouldn’t even be in business. They should be in jail.
But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety.
The loss of "data integrity" & "patient safety" is exactly what they were going for...
"One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box. Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants."
This really needs to get more views. This one's important:
The whistleblower is a researcher with impeccable credentials
The report is publish in the BMJ (one of the top 3 medical journals worldwide)
The biggest bombshell is that they failed to screen patients who developed flu-like symptoms for COVID. A positive case was part of their primary endpoint regarding the efficacy of the vaccine. This calls into question that 95% they tout.
This was reported to the FDA who failed to investigate, ignored it, and approved the vaccine despite knowing about these critical issues with their data.
Get this one to your local health boards, your local representatives state and federal. We need to start screaming about this one. It needs to get going on social media too, so that MSM will be forced to address it with their "fact-checkers." As soon as they start lying about it, people will know what's up.
It will be up to our patriot brethren who live in NYC where Pfizer's headquarters is to protest in front of their office building everyday until they back down. Their executives should not be able to walk down the street without getting lynched by a mob of angry parents and patriots.
You need to look more closely at the experimental design. It's not traditional. The combined the phase 1, 2, and 3 trials into the same trial. On clinicaltrials.gov, it's all the same trial. In fact, after the phase 3 interim data was used to get the EUAs, they converted to an open label design and gave the people in the placebo group the vaccine too. They're a second cohort. And when they added the kids to the cohort and when they started screening boosters, they added those to the same trial as well, all running in parallel with the same study design. That's true for both Pfizer and Moderna. It's tough to follow all of this because the data doesn't get published in peer-reviewed journals for >6 months after they make the press release, but that's what's going on. It's an ongoing and evolving trial.
Honestly, from a purely medical perspective, the idea has merit. It cuts a lot of the bullshit out of the process when you need results fast, as in an emerging disease. However, the scientist in me remembers how many of these drugs fail during phase 1 and 2, and that's why we do separate the phases normally, and probably why it's especially important during a crisis when people are panicking that the system maintain it's safeguards.
The report you linked is literally the phase 3 study, including over 45,000 individual participants who were blindly given either placebo or the Pfizer vaccine.
A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients
And how about this?
Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.
And the real kicker:
In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported covid-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic covid-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted. (An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic covid-19.)
The entire premise of 95% efficacy came from this study where 8 people from vaccine group and 162 people from placebo group tested positive for Covid (<1% error margin). These missing 477 people is almost thrice that population and could have completely upended the results.
When you take the unblinding and the exclusion of 477 people from testing, the picture emerges that perhaps they knew which patient was control and which was vaccined, and hence eliminated the vaccined from testing.
When I first read this trial I had a strong suspicion this is what happened, but I had no way to prove that they had the means to know who were vaccinated.
I am not really sure what your issue is. Go back and look at the original EUA that quoted these studies. Go back and look at the videos by Robert Malone and others, who criticised these numbers quoting specifically these studies.
but don't go down the rabbit hole of jumping on some small thing in the hopes of proving that.
Yeah, I think we not only have to contend with Sheeple who have their eyes closed but also with people who have their eyes very partially opened and are so scared to believe anything slightly outrageous to be true. Good luck when more and more outrageous stuff comes out, and I mean that sincerely.
Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
Consequences when?
consequences.win
jk
Lol that shit would be empty af since nobody has been held accountable for shit.
There are plenty of arrests and resignations. We keep tracking them here but not in one post. Just because we dont see it at the highest level (since the sting is ongoing) and we dont see it in headlines does not mean people are not being held accountable. Keep heart, its all happening. The final step has to be this painful for this lesson to be remembered by people for generations to come.
Resignations aren't justice.
Resignations are indications that the judicial process is starting, OR they are co-operating in bringing others down.
Yes. And their trials, & punishment
Oh don't worry, big pharma will send the cleanup crew in to neutralize the whistleblower within the week. He/she won't escape the consequences of outing their fake studies and fake evidence for getting this population control shot into every man woman and child pin the planet. Whistleblower should have read the employment contact as I'm pretty sure they write the "you agree to swift neutralization if you are found to be blowing any whistles (physical out metaphorical)" clause directly into the employment agreement.
Oh wait, you meant when does big pharma get consequences. Well short answer is it doesn't. Long answer is big pharma will create a shell Corp with minimal assets and will assign to it the patents, the management (via subcontract) and/or the liabilities for the poison vaccines and the drug trials for the FDA approvals. Thus they will let the lawsuit go against said shell company so everyone can sue it and obtain pyrrhic victory while the pharmaceutical company will continue on without issue. The FDA drug approval group knows full well to not review the data from the trials in too much detail when the drug is from one of the major 3 pharmaceutical companies.
In my opinion, if the drug is from a smaller company, then the review process is much more detailed and intentionally designed to put up roadblocks and slow walk approval. That way the big three pharmaceuticals will have more time and leverage to propose buying out the small company at minimal cost and/or buying out the patents underlying if they just want only the one drug.
Hopefully this time it goes drastically differently and we can break up these companies, and put the execs and board on trial on down to the scientists who falsified data.
RIP Jeff Bradstreet
I know. The imo was in there to prevent any legal jeopardy.
At least you're optimistic about it all :)
Did you read the article?
Right.
None of this is a surprise. Pfizer has already paid the biggest criminal fine in history for FRAUD. They shouldn’t even be in business. They should be in jail.
Sorry we are fresh out of consequences, is Pepsi okay?
Sounds comfy, so yes fren.
Hang them.
Being exempt from lawsuits from vaccine injuries are null and void if it's proven you deliberately defrauded to get the vaccine approved.
This is absolutely the point!
This needs a booom flair 💯
Thats a massive win.
A fraudulent pharma company in bed with a fraudulent government ran a fraudulent clinical trial? Stop the presses.
Archived! https://archive.md/bj0mM
COVID-19 narrative end - Election Day +1
Could this be the beginning of the end?
No. We will never see the end of this panic.
The loss of "data integrity" & "patient safety" is exactly what they were going for...
From the article linked:
"One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box. Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants."
This really needs to get more views. This one's important:
Get this one to your local health boards, your local representatives state and federal. We need to start screaming about this one. It needs to get going on social media too, so that MSM will be forced to address it with their "fact-checkers." As soon as they start lying about it, people will know what's up.
It will be up to our patriot brethren who live in NYC where Pfizer's headquarters is to protest in front of their office building everyday until they back down. Their executives should not be able to walk down the street without getting lynched by a mob of angry parents and patriots.
The MSM needs to cover this!
They have been too busy covering tiki torches .
IKR???
What ‘clinical trials’? The trials won’t be completed until 2024.
Stop listening to Alex Jones, he's a liar and a PAYtriot.
The Phase 2 clinical trials that, after 3 and 6 months results, was used to issue EUA for the vaccines.
You need to look more closely at the experimental design. It's not traditional. The combined the phase 1, 2, and 3 trials into the same trial. On clinicaltrials.gov, it's all the same trial. In fact, after the phase 3 interim data was used to get the EUAs, they converted to an open label design and gave the people in the placebo group the vaccine too. They're a second cohort. And when they added the kids to the cohort and when they started screening boosters, they added those to the same trial as well, all running in parallel with the same study design. That's true for both Pfizer and Moderna. It's tough to follow all of this because the data doesn't get published in peer-reviewed journals for >6 months after they make the press release, but that's what's going on. It's an ongoing and evolving trial.
Honestly, from a purely medical perspective, the idea has merit. It cuts a lot of the bullshit out of the process when you need results fast, as in an emerging disease. However, the scientist in me remembers how many of these drugs fail during phase 1 and 2, and that's why we do separate the phases normally, and probably why it's especially important during a crisis when people are panicking that the system maintain it's safeguards.
The report you linked is literally the phase 3 study, including over 45,000 individual participants who were blindly given either placebo or the Pfizer vaccine.
That headline is not what the article says at all.
What exact word would you use to describe this ?
And how about this?
And the real kicker:
The entire premise of 95% efficacy came from this study where 8 people from vaccine group and 162 people from placebo group tested positive for Covid (<1% error margin). These missing 477 people is almost thrice that population and could have completely upended the results.
When you take the unblinding and the exclusion of 477 people from testing, the picture emerges that perhaps they knew which patient was control and which was vaccined, and hence eliminated the vaccined from testing.
When I first read this trial I had a strong suspicion this is what happened, but I had no way to prove that they had the means to know who were vaccinated.
The 95% didn't come from this study.
We all know the vaxx is a disaster, but don't go down the rabbit hole of jumping on some small thing in the hopes of proving that.
We need to be honest in our research so people can replicate and follow on their own.
I am not really sure what your issue is. Go back and look at the original EUA that quoted these studies. Go back and look at the videos by Robert Malone and others, who criticised these numbers quoting specifically these studies.
Yeah, I think we not only have to contend with Sheeple who have their eyes closed but also with people who have their eyes very partially opened and are so scared to believe anything slightly outrageous to be true. Good luck when more and more outrageous stuff comes out, and I mean that sincerely.
Soooo you still didn't read the article you linked?
Yes, the 95% number did. Good Lord. Don't go saying stupid crap. It makes all of us who are skeptical look like morons. If you don't know, don't say it. The 95% did in fact come from this study. They had 43,000 people. Half got the vax. Half didn't. They waited a few months and screened anyone who showed up with flu-like symptoms. 8 positive cases in the vaxxed group, 162 in the placebo group --> 95% efficacy.
So, if you just don't bother to screen your test subjects when they have flu-like respiratory symptoms, it makes it look like the drug is more effective than it actually is. In truth, those people could be: 1) sick with something else (no change), 2) all in the placebo group (vax is even better), or 3) heavily in the vax group (vax is much worse). But we don't know because they didn't get the PCR test. Any proper peer-reviewer would toss the study on this and any proper journal with integrity would retract the paper. It's not a small deal.
That is not what that article says at all.
This part of the show is brought to you by Pfizer