So Brook Jackson alleged that it was unblind. This trial had been unblinded in many different ways. And the other thing is, they hired people to work in the clinical trial who were not qualified. They also brought people into the clinical trial as trial participants who should never have been there.
Then when they massaged the data to get it before the FDA—and in massaging that data, we believe they eliminated huge segments of the 43,000 people in that clinical trial in order to make the shot look safe and effective.
Additionally, on the safety side we have found a number of deaths and a number of other incidents, many, many incidents that were excluded and not presented to the FDA in terms of the safety data. Anybody can find the infamous nine pages of adverse reactions. These are nine typed-up pages of adverse reactions, just on and on and on, hundreds and hundreds of adverse reactions that Pfizer identified in this clinical trial.
So, Brook came in, and then on top of that, this is also a very astounding fact. When Brook tried to do the right thing and blew the whistle, contacted the FDA, our government, someone in our government apparently reached out to Pfizer or the clinical trial contractor, Ventavia, and had her fired within a matter of hours.
This is something new, by the way, Scott, that I’ve never really seen in my career. But now I have seen it twice recently: once with FDA and once with the Department of Energy where someone in the federal government said, You have to get this person off your staff. They’re a whistleblower and then the company does what the government tells ’em to do. So that is a very bizarre—I’ve never had this happen in 25 years of representing whistleblowers, I’ve never had it happen. In the last couple of years I’ve had it happen twice. That does indicate to me a level of let’s just call it what it is, a level of corruption a level of control by the corporation of the agency that’s supposed to be overseeing the agency that should never be there.
That kind of communication is completely inappropriate. She should have—her identity should have been protected. And FBI agents should have gone out and talked to her and protected her, whatever she needed. And instead they reveal her to the wrongdoer in this case. Like I said, I’ve had that happen twice. That is a new behavior by government bureaucrats. And those are bad people. We need to find out who they are, and they need to be ejected. That’s illegal behavior. It’s probably criminal behavior,
Then the judge had a hearing in February where we were invited down to Beaumont, Texas to his courtroom, along with a whole room full of Pfizer attorneys as well. And we were arguing about, we argued the motion to dismiss.
Now the judge has ruled against Brook and dismissed the case. We are working on some additional filings that have to be in by the end of this week, because we are going to ask the judge for an opportunity to address anything and everything he thought we could do to bolster our complaints. So that’s going, that’ll be going in this week.
But what’s interesting is his order. Because his order lays bear some things that I think the American public needs to know. The first thing that I think is a growing awareness is this is not an FDA or HHS or CDC or National Institutes of Health program.
This is a military program by the Department of Defense. And the purpose of the program, is in their contract, is for military preparedness. So it’s a military program. People need to understand that. And the judge makes this very clear in his ruling. I think what’s important about having it in a judicial ruling, this is the benefit of even a losing battle, a losing case; I don’t think people realize, or, if you tell ’em it’s a DOD project, I don’t think they understand the implications of that. I don’t think they get it. I don’t think they’re—they’d be like, How is this a military project? And they don’t believe you as an attorney or a commentator, whatever.
But now we have a judge, a federal judge who’s telling the world, it was a Department of Defense program for military readiness, which apparently involves all the civilians in the United States.
And it is a prototype project. So it’s not even a finished product, it’s a prototype product. I think that also raises a question in people’s mind, Well, should I take a prototype? A prototype in Detroit, they actually sculpt the cars out of clay, and they’ll have a prototype design that you can’t get in there and start it. There is no “in there”. It’s just a clay vehicle. I like cars. So you see them sculpt and figure out the shapes and test it in wind tunnels, that’s a prototype. This is the same thing. This is a prototype. It is not a finished product.
So again, DOD project, it’s a prototype and it’s not even—the use of the word vaccine is just, it’s just astounding throughout this. I’ll probably sprinkle “vaccine” in my talk here a little bit as well, just because it’s so ubiquitous in conversation. But this is not a vaccine. This is a called a countermeasure. And the countermeasure, if you look at the law, is to respond to a biological attack. Biological, chemical, nuclear attack. So this is a biological—I think implicit in what’s happening here is that we are under biological attack.
This is the most generous way we can look at what our government is doing. The generous way is that somebody in the government said, We are under biological attack—which nobody’s telling us that in the media—and we have to develop a countermeasure to a biological attack. That might be a more honest way to present this to the American people, but they haven’t presented it that way.
But then we look at the product itself, and because it’s not a finished product, and because the trials, as we’ve alleged in Brook’s case were fraudulent, we don’t have good data as to what this even does. And there’s certainly not any excuse to inject this substance in the vast majority of Americans or, or even people worldwide.
Then it just gets worse and worse—and I could go on and on Scott—but what we know in the clinical trials is let’s just talk about it real generally, the clinical trials by the numbers. There were 43,000 people roughly in the clinical trials scattered throughout the United States. If you split that in half, one side is the control arm, meaning they didn’t get the shot, the other side is the testing arm that got the shot.
If you look at the overall numbers, they had, the same amount basically got covid. I’m not talking about after they clean it or massage it. I’m talking just the raw numbers. About the same amounts of people got covid in both arms. There was no demonstration. If you just look at the raw numbers, [it] didn’t look effective and it only looked effective once they’d massaged it.
Then additionally, keeping looking at the raw numbers, you see that actually more people died in the testing arm than the control arm. So that’s a huge signal that normally you want to see that there’s some benefit in terms of what’s called All Cause Mortality. There was no benefit. There was a negative. It killed more people to be in the treatment arm than in the placebo arm.
Then boiling it down even further, we see [in] pregnant women, we see losses of pregnancies, the early signals. We see nine pages of damaging reactions, nine pages, folks.
And then the last thing is, the number of people that was submitted in the final data analysis to the FDA, this entire emergency use authorization rested on only 170 people. Not the 43,000. They boiled all that data down to 170 people. And then that’s the decision, that decision to inject billions of people came from results and analysis of just 170 of the 43,000 people. To me, that is astounding.
Now, let’s talk about those 170. Of the 170, you have to hit a threshold of 165. That was their threshold. They barely got over the threshold. But when you look at Brook’s site, that knocks out three or four of them. So now there are only one or two over the threshold, and that’s just Brook’s site. There’s over a hundred sites around the world to look at. And we’re just getting started.
The Argentine site to me is very curious what’s going on down there. The chief researcher is a guy named Fernando Pollack (sp?). I can’t for the life of me find his medical license. If he hears this, if he hears your show, I’d like him to send me a copy of his medical license. Because when you have a clinical trial director, they’re supposed to have a medical license. And we see that he’s not licensed in the United States from everything I’ve seen. I asked some Argentine friends to get me his medical license down there and they can’t find it. So I’m wondering if that whole clinical trial in Argentina is proper.
Then we know from a gentleman down there, Augusto Ru, who I’ve been in touch with, that there were deaths in the clinical trial. Augusto himself was an injury in that Argentine clinical trial that went unreported. He’s terribly injured. Augusto is a very smart man. He’s an attorney in Argentina. He’s digging and is trying to help us figure out what happened down there. And then the trial down there took place on a military base.
And the Argentine data, which should have been 10% of those 170, there were about 4,000 people in that Argentine trial, should have been 10% of the 170, ended up actually being like 40 people. Way over 10%. So that’s a heavily weighted trial site where we can’t get the information on the clinical director. We know it was on a military base. We know they didn’t report injuries and deaths. So it’s a very, very, very suspicious site.
And you see where I’m getting at. So now you take the 40 people out of there, you’re way below any statistically significant threshold number to make any decision. It doesn’t even matter. You cannot decide—you’re, below the number necessary to decide FDA.
And that’s something that we are going to bring up this week with the court as well. So I hope that helps you understand a a little bit about that case.
[ends at
32:38]