Pfizer is trying to cover their tracks after recent problems came to light about one of their COVID-19 “vaccine” trials. Plus, it really seems like Pfizer doesn’t care at all about the integrity of these important trials, and the effect they might have on the public.
All of these issues revolve around their Phase-3 trial, with the report being posted by one of the leading medical journals in America today, The BMJ. This is a reputable medical trade journal that is published on a biweekly basis with millions of readers to their credit.
In this particular feature they reported, The BMJ states quite a few factors that will be shocking about how Pfizer performed and reported their “vaccine” trials.
It’s shady and sloppy behavior, to say the least.
The Whistleblower Worked for a Research Group
The whistleblower who came forward with all of this information is Brook Jackson, who worked for a prominent research company, the Ventavia Research Group, as their regional director for almost a month. They were the company that partnered with Pfizer on this specific “vaccine” trial, Phase-3.
She had no issue with blowing the cover off of the problems that the “vaccine” trial brought to the table by reporting these issues to The BMJ. For the benefit of the public who is interested in getting these “vaccines,” it’s pretty remarkable that Jackson came forward with any information at all.
It takes guts to come out against Big Pharma with her honest impressions of how the trial went.
The Problems With the “Vaccine” Trial
One of the main points that Jackson makes in The BMJ is that the people involved with the trial were surprised by the number of issues that were coming up during the entire process, and there were a ton of them.
Some of that included just how the lack of training the clinicians giving the “vaccines” was affecting the trial participants and the results. That included lab issues, safety problems for the participants, and a lack of follow-up revolving around adverse reactions.
She also reported that some of the data was false, and that the blind trials weren’t handled correctly, so the results in the data weren’t accurate.
In total transparency, Jackson was fired shortly after she was hired, claiming that she was dismissed for reporting some of these issues with the trial to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but the company who hired her says that she just “wasn’t a good fit” for the work.
A Letter With Good Intentions
In Jackson’s letter about the problems with the “vaccine” trial to the FDA, she details almost 15 instances of questionable procedures and results. It included things like: protocols not being followed to the letter, “vaccines” being stored incorrectly in too high temperatures, lab samples not being labeled correctly, and the clinical staff not paying attention to participants in the moments after they received the “vaccine” to see if any adverse reactions occurred.
All in all, it seems like Brook Jackson was very brave to come forward with these issues about Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” trials for the greater good of the public at large, who are expected to get the “vaccine.”
Other employees who worked with her have backed up the claims that she made during everyone’s time working with Pfizer on the trials. One employee who had been with the company for over 20 years said that they had never seen a trial so poorly run and organized.
An executive with Pfizer has since apologized to Jackson, and by that standard, is probably validating the information that was reported as accurate.
Now, Pfizer is scrambling to disprove some of the claims that she made by reporting this to the FDA, and now with the exposé in The BMJ, they have even more bad press coming out.
Pfizer obviously doesn’t think that the Ventavia Research Group did a terrible job, since they are currently partnering with them on four more clinical trials involving various aspects of preventing COVID-19, including some that include young adults and pregnant women.
Hopefully, with these problems coming out about some of the trials that Pfizer is doing, they will tighten up their practices making sure that the process of testing the “vaccine” is safer for the participants and will provide more accurate data reporting to the public.
Or better yet, just don’t get the “vaccine.”