Discussion about this post

User's avatar
A Midwestern Doctor's avatar

You probably are aware of all of this but:

1) As mentioned in your video, if Fraud can be proven, it absolves Pfizer of the legal protection they received from the COVID laws that passed congress. That's a big deal. I also think evidence of clear fraud in the trials is the one thing that would make committed vaccine pushing doctors be open to reconsidering their position (as it allows the blame to be put on the fraudsters who made bad evidence rather than their inability to evaluate the evidence).

2) Pharmaceutical companies have done things like this in the past, but normally not this blantantly.

3) It is easier to commit this type of fraud outside of the USA (which is where it happened in this case).

4) Pfizer probably panicked and realized they did not have enough subjects or the results were too weak. What would be very helpful to know would be how the data at that site compared to other (another of which we also know was compromised due to the other Pfizer whistleblower).

5) I agree with all your commentary in the video and it is surprising none of this occurred to the regulators who reviewed Pfizer's data.

6) The referenced article is probably just the tip of the iceberg on this author and hopefully investigative journalists will dig up more. It is quite surprising the lead author was this heavily involved in so much corruption. One of the initial reasons I came across questioning the validity of the Pfizer trial was due to this him not being the person you typically expect to be qualified to be the senior author on a paper of this importance.

The article also specifically notes that HE CONCEALED SEVERE ADVERSE EVENTS IN HIS ARM OF THE TRIAL.

the article for reference is here:

https://davidhealy.org/fishy-business-in-the-rio-de-la-plata/

7) This should have been caught by NEJM, which once again like the surgisphere paper shows there are no issues in publishing bad data that supports the narrative.

Expand full comment
Raymond Tidman's avatar

As a PI in clinical trials I can tell you , enrolling 57 pts , per week , at a site is near impossible . That would be over 10 patients per work day .

Trial enrollment is tedious work, done by highly trained CRA’s ( certified research associates ) . I as a PI with 3 on staff , would never see 3 patients enrolled in one day . ( enrolling a pt is very data collection intensive , plus time for the pt to be consented , examined , and base line labs done … then data entered )

Ask not how many Dr’s were participating , their part may be 30 min.

Ask for each “site “ , “hospital” , ect , ask how many CRA’s were employed .

RT

Expand full comment
336 more comments...

No posts