The British Medical Journal (BMJ) is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. On November 2, 2021, the BMJ reported that the research company hired by Pfizer-BioNTech to conduct their COVID-19 vaccine research falsified data. But when one reads the report, an impression is given that the falsified data was due to negligence. The report does not suggest any evidence of intent.
I cannot fault the author of the November 2, 2021 BMJ article. He reported what he was told. What he was told suggested negligence. The article is sprinkled with statements that attribute study inaccuracies to under-staffing and sloppiness rather than intentional data manipulation. The report acknowledges that data was falsified, but that concession in the report is cloaked by words like “inadequate,” “inadvertent,” “poor,” “concerns,” “problems,” “deviation,” “errors,” etc. That language gives the impression of sloppiness and negligence rather than an intentional plan to fraudulently steer the results to favor the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
The BMJ article seems to attribute the improprieties to negligence. The BMJ report does not opine on the possibility of a deliberate conspiracy to contrive a study to fraudulently show the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines to be safe and effective when they are, in fact, dangerous and ineffective.
But one must ask what are the chances that every careless act inured to benefit the pharmacutical company paying for the study? Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that when every alleged mistake weighed toward a finding that the vaccine under study is safe and effective, perhaps we are not looking at errors at all but a conspiracy to rig the test to favor the safety and efficacy of the vaccine?
The whistleblowers perhaps only know about negligent activity or activity that was explained away as negligent, but the BMJ was sitting on information that sheds a whole new light on those revelations. Notably, the BMJ has information about specific improprieties in the study Pfizer-BioNtech study suggestive of fraudulent intent. One of its senior editors had previously published detailed data indicating intentional manipulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech trials. But those improprieties went unmentioned in the November 2, 2021 BMJ article.
Peter Doshi, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. He is also a senior editor at the British Medical Journal (aka, BMJ). Dr. Doshi wrote an opinion in the January 4, 2021 BMJ wherein he criticized the Pfizer COVID-19 safety and efficacy trials. Doshi noted several irregularities in the study suggestive of data manipulation. Dr. Doshi explains:
All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.
You read that correctly; there were 3,410 cases of suspected COVID-19 with no indication in the report whether or not they were tested. The report only indicated that the participants were not confirmed to be COVID-19 via a PCR test. It gets worse. That information was not revealed in the 92-page report filed by Pfizer-BioNTech. Dr. Doshi reveals:
There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.
One can reasonably infer that the reason Pfizer did not reveal the 3,410 cases of suspected COVID-19 is that the revelation of that data would undermine the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine under study. But that evidence in Dr. Doshi’s January 4, 2021 BMJ article suggestive of a plan to hide the ineffectiveness and danger of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was not mentioned in the November 2, 2021 BMJ article.
Dr. Doshi was also troubled by the unusually unbalanced and unexplained numbers of people excluded from the efficacy analysis. There were five (5) times more people lost in the vaccine group due to protocol deviations than the control group. 311 were excluded from the vaccine group vs. 60 on placebo. Dr. Doshi was perplexed:
What were these protocol deviations in Pfizer’s study, and why were there five times more participants excluded in the vaccine group? The FDA report doesn’t say, and these exclusions are difficult to even spot in Pfizer’s report and journal publication.
Not mentioned by Dr. Doshi was that in the Pfizer trial, as in the Moderna trial, those that had suspected COVID-19 within seven (7) days of vaccination were not publically reported by Pfizer. This is no criticism of Dr. Doshi, as he seems to be an honest reporter of facts. He dutifully reported what he found. One man can only do so much. The FDA auditors found that data. The FDA explained that “[s]uspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within seven (7) days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.” You read that correctly; there were more suspected COVID-19 cases within seven (7) days in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group. They manifested clinical symptoms of COVID-19. They got ill from the vaccine. Those persons were likely not given confirmatory COVID-19 PCR tests and thus were left in the suspected category, just as was done in the Moderna trial. That way, Pfizer could be sure not to contradict their desired outcome of preventing COVID-19. But the suspected COVID-19 cases within seven (7) days were not reported by Pfizer in their published reports. The government auditors were left to guess that “[i]t is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the seven (7) days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.” But that is just a guess by the auditors, as Pfizer, apparently, provided no explanation.
There is a reason that Moderna and Pfizer did not PCR test those who showed symptoms of COVID-19 within seven (7) days of vaccination. They knew the results would likely be positive. Indeed, that is what we see in the real world. For example, 35 nuns received COVID-19, and within two days, 28 nuns fell ill and tested positive for COVID-19, with two of the nuns dying during those two days. A third nun also died days later. That is clear evidence of ADE within days of being vaccinated. It is the very evidence that both Moderna and Pfizer sought to conceal in their studies.
Dr. Doshi was further troubled by the fact that the adjudication committee for the Pfizer adjudication committee consisted of three Pfizer employees. The study could hardly be unbiased when it is being run by Pfizer employees being paid by the company that is banking on a favorable outcome. Pfizer published its study results on November 30, 2020, but four months earlier, on or before July 22, 2020, the U.S. government had already placed a $1.95 billion order for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. At that time, Pfizer had just begun to enter its late-stage, 30,000-person study. The study had not begun, and no data had even been generated. But recall, Pfizer ran the study and was able to rig it to say what they wanted it to say. The skids were greased. There were 1.95 billion reasons for making sure the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine study showed safety and efficacy. “The love of money is the root of all evil.” 1 Timothy 6:10.
It is notable that Dr. Doshi’s findings were not mentioned in the November 2, 2021 BMJ article. Dr. Doshi’s findings point toward purposeful data manipulation.
Any reports of “scientific” trials of drugs or vaccines funded by pharmacutical companies should be considered untrustworthy. In 2015, Richard Horton, the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, said that medical research is unreliable at best if not completely bogus. Horton stated:
[M]ajor pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants.”
Dr. Marcia Angell is a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ). NEMJ, like the BMJ, is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Angell stated:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal ofMedicine.
“The World’s Leading Expert on Medical Research, Dr. John Ioanidis … told the Atlantic Monthly in an article titled ‘Lies, Damn Lies, and Medical Science’ that 90% of medical research is tainted if not outright bogus due to influence from the industry.”
In a recent blog article I gave an example of Richard Norton’s assertion that pharmacutical companies take samples too small to be statistically meaningful. Dr. Rogers revealed that “Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms. This is a well-known trick of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA even called them out on it earlier this summer and asked Pfizer to expand the trial, and Pfizer just ignored them because they can.” Dr. Rogers explains the trick: “To put it simply, if the rate of particular adverse outcome in kids as a result of this shot is 1 in 5,000 and the trial only enrolls 1,518 in the treatment group then one is unlikely to spot this particular harm in the clinical trial. Voilà “Safe & Effective(TM)”.
Another trick vaccine makers use is to have a brief period to monitor test participants for adverse events. Pfizer only followed cohort 1 for two months and cohort 2 for 17 days for adverse events. But many adverse events take much longer to show up. Dr. Rogers observed: “As the old saying goes, ‘you can have it quick or you can have it done right, but you cannot have both.’ Pfizer chose quick.”
Such short observation periods acts to conceal the harm done to the heart. Dr. Rogers explains that “the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years.” The Pfizer study seemed designed to conceal the danger of myocarditis.