TOP LINE
Here is a montage of interviews with Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson, who is in the midst of suing the pharma giant under the federal False Claims Act. Jackson, a former regional director for Pfizer subcontractor Ventavia, says that three of Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” trial sites in Texas committed “fraud” during the clinical trials: including by “fabricating and [falsifying] data,” not obtaining informed consent from some participants, not reporting adverse events in a timely manner (or at all), and unblinding both participants and clinical staff.
Although it’s easy to get caught up in the “theoretical” aspects of the COVID-19 “vaccines”—e.g. guessing at what the spike protein does to the body based on research or presuming what the injections do based on patents—it’s critical to focus first on real, tangible data and testimonials for accurate insights. One such real, concrete piece of evidence people should keep in mind is whistleblower Brook Jackson’s verifiable claims that Ventavia, a Pfizer subcontractor partially responsible for trialing the pharma giant’s COVID “vaccine,” committed “fraud” during the clinical trials by “fabricating and [falsifying] data,” not reporting adverse events, unblinding both participants and clinicians, and committing a bevy of other Good Clinical Practices (GCP) violations.
In the video above posted to Rumble by Tim Truth we have a montage of some of the interviews Jackson has done since blowing the whistle on Ventavia and Pfizer. In the interviews Jackson—who’s in the midst of suing Pfizer—describes the careless and seemingly criminal activity she witnessed while working as a regional director in Texas during 2020.
“Every single day I spoke to managers about what we were finding,” Jackson says in the first interview in the montage. She notes she observed Ventavia demonstrate “fabrication and falsification of data” as well as “fraud in some instances.”
Regarding the proper acquirement of informed consent forms from trial participants, Jackson says “in some cases I was finding… the patient signature was missing, the date was missing, [and] sometimes… [both] the signature and date was missing.” Jackson even notes that falsifying participant signatures “was something that Ventavia staff was doing” and that “three different Ventavia employees… had disciplinary action… for fabricating and falsifying data” regarding informed consent forms. Jackson adds Ventavia “was aware [of this behavior]” and makes clear that “They knew.”
There was also sloppy reporting—or sometimes a lack of reporting—of adverse events amongst the participant population. Jackson notes there was “one instance where a patient had a severe adverse event that was not reported or followed up on in 11 days, [even though it was] required by [Pfizer’s] protocol and the institutional review boards… [to] report [within]… 24 hours.” Jackson also says there were adverse events that were not reported at all, in part due to an unclear understanding of Pfizer’s protocol by Ventavia employees.
“I actually have documentation of that… [thanks to] a conversation between Pfizer and Ventavia where they’re having to go back and record certain symptoms patients were experiencing as adverse events because they weren’t done so initially,” Jackson says in the first interview in the montage. Patient “diaries” for reporting adverse events were also limited to only certain ailments, and the only way to report serious adverse events in particular was by contacting the—understaffed—clinical trial sites.
Jackson also says Ventavia did not store Pfizer’s COVID injections properly. On the contrary, the subcontractor seemingly treated the injection vials with reckless apathy.
“[T]he vaccine was [sometimes] just left out on the counter,” Jackson says, noting that the injections were supposed to be kept in “ultra-cold” freezers until being administered to trial participants.
There was also a major issue with the unblinding of both participants and Ventavia staff members.
“Ventavia had unblinded every patient that was randomized in the trial from the moment they started enrolling, which was in July of 2020… “ Jackson says in the video’s first interview. Jackson says that research staff, research physicians, and director-level staff “automatically [knew]” if patients were “receiving placebo or receiving the vaccine.” The former regional director adds that this behavior should’ve warranted a call to Pfizer to warn of potential unblinding, but notes that call never happened.
While the FDA undoubtedly knew of Jackson’s complaints per Pfizer’s own admission in its motion to dismiss Jackson’s lawsuit—hear Jackson expound on that in her own words in the video immediately above—it did nothing about them. A letter published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), written by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, notes that an unnamed former staffer in the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations who “was… concerned about the agency’s failure to fully tackle Jackson’s complaint about falsified data” wrote in an email that “Having worked at the FDA, I see it as surprising, for many reasons, that the agency turned a blind eye [to Jackson’s complaints]…. .” The former FDA staffer added that the regulatory agency “likely feared the criticism they undoubtedly would have received for holding up a vaccine (which they knew they would eventually approve anyway) at the expense of untold lives lost.”
Furthermore, Jackson’s lawsuit against Pfizer, lodged under the federal False Claims Act, has revealed that Pfizer was only required to perform a “demonstration” of clinical trials; not real clinical trials according to Good Clinical Practices (GCP). In its motion to dismiss Jackson’s lawsuit, Pfizer said that it had no responsibility to perform the clinical trial according to GCP “or related FDA regulations.” I.e. it doesn’t matter that Pfizer’s clinical trials were sloppy and fraudulent as that wasn’t part of the deal it made with the Department of Defense (DoD).
Speaking of which, it was the DoD—not say, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—that agreed to purchase these “vaccines.” More importantly, legally—as pharma insider Sasha Latypova and researcher Katherine Watt have exposed—the injections are actually “prototype countermeasures” that can’t be regulated by the FDA per EUA law. A fact that also helps to illuminate why Pfizer has gotten away with all of the grave issues raised by Jackson.
Feature image: The British Medical Journal
Related News
