Need a 2nd set of eyes…it looks like the ICAN Pfizer documents support the BMJ whistleblower’s claims that alerted people to Ventavia having issues with data integrity for their Phase III trials. Page 45/46 looks like a severe illness was reported but no notes were taken? 3.5k pgs of Ventavia docs
(www.icandecide.org)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (16)
sorted by:
On pages 45/46 specifically, I’m thinking it’s an actual reporting event due to a patient ID being given, the form being generated in July 2020, and the event being reported in March 2021.
Although it looks like they have those created for every subject? But most of the follow-up reporting sheets for these trial participants are blank?
Anyone with clinical trial/medical background able to clarify things here?
Uhhhhh page 67: they’ve redacted the date of DEATH for a patient who apparently joined the study in September 2020 and died in October 2020???? From pneumonia and myocardial infarction???
It looks like they did absolutely nothing with their 6 month follow up reporting…?
I'll take a gander, but we need more than just 2 people on this if it's 3.5K pages.
Yeah, agreed.
The conversations on the log entries about the person who died/after 45/46 seems like such a shitshow.
They entered follow up visit data for a visit date AFTER the reported date of death. And they have to nudge them multiple times to correct it.
Pages 301 and beyond have comments about deaths and how dates did not match up according to death dates, it ask for clarification on notes. This is more than one instance. I did do a document search for the word death and it appears over 200 times. This is going to be a long process but there are lots looking at this now.
Thank you for this; I’ve been trying to comb through it on mobile which has not been an easy thing to do.
Even those that didn’t die suffered from some concerning side effects. I can’t believe this got through the FDA.
Could they be faking deaths to pump Covid death numbers? Could they be using real deaths kinda in the same way they manipulate voting?
In the case of that first death, the commentary on the audit log looks like they were trying to cover up the death timeline for that trial participant rather than make one up.
They put in a follow up visit date for after the official death date, and it took multiple nudges for them to change their reporting to be correct. Someone also mentions that the myocardial infarction may need to be “reconsidered” since her family says she had one in 2017 but it didn’t come up in the health history screening…which seems unlikely. Unless they just did a poor screening job. They also attribute that infarction to a failed stent; but I’m wondering why she needed that stent so quickly after her vaccination?
They also argue about her pneumonia—the cause of death—being COVID pneumonia or not. Somehow, despite everyone and their brother needing a COVID test to go near a hospital in 2020, she supposedly was not tested upon admittance to the ER. The audit trail suggests that they couldn’t locate a nasal swab for her post-admittance. This poor woman.
Another woman wound up at the ER with hypokalemia, shortness of breath, and other concerning symptoms. It appears they kept trying to pass her symptoms off as COVID despite her testing samples being negative.
Haven’t figured out which file this came from yet, but apparently even Pfizer notified the FDA that vaccine associated enhanced disease and vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease were potential risks.
I cannot believe people are not protesting about this.
The excel files are available on the iCAN website. I just can’t open them on mobile/run any analysis on the data.
But they are there if you really want to get into the nitty gritty
Could they have just combed obituaries and created fake trial participants? I’m just spitballing ideas
Always good to think outside the box.
Or coffin, in this case.
Would be interesting to find out if any of the study participants were fake, like Democrat voters.
Thanks for the heads up!