BMJ: A Company Hired by Pfizer for COVID Trials Falsified Data

[Wandering Monk]

By now we have global evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective against hospitalization and death (7 billion doses administered globally.) I have been a big advocate of vaccination, but this is damnable.

One of the companies hired by Pfizer to conduct trials on its Covid vaccine has been accused of falsifying trial data. A recent report by the British Medical Journal also points out the inability of the FDA to adequately investigate whistleblower complaints.

This better get fixed! Independent labs not funded by the company producing the drug would be a good start.

Heads need to roll.

"But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails."

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

 

[The Hammer]

And the anti-COVID vax conspiracy deepens.

 

[InChrist]

Ptizer does not have the most ethical track record...



“The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outraged many Canadian health researchers. Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. ”

”Looking at Pfizer's record, one thinks of the phrase “habitual criminal.” But the corporation lacks the mens rea, the guilty mind, associated with criminality in the natural person. Amoral, purely legal persons recognize no moral restraints, so are no more capable of feeling guilt than a robot (Bakan 2004).”
Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR


Pfizer: Corporate Rap Sheet | Corporate Research Project

 

[We Never Know]

By now we have global evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective against hospitalization and death (7 billion doses administered globally.) I have been a big advocate of vaccination, but this is damnable.

One of the companies hired by Pfizer to conduct trials on its Covid vaccine has been accused of falsifying trial data. A recent report by the British Medical Journal also points out the inability of the FDA to adequately investigate whistleblower complaints.

This better get fixed! Independent labs not funded by the company producing the drug would be a good start.

Heads need to roll.

"But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails."

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

Like it or not, studies are falsified because profit comes first.

 

[SA Huguenot]

And the anti-COVID vax conspiracy deepens.

Yip, and the brainvaxxed conspirators continue to think they are following science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ptizer does not have the most ethical track record...



“The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outraged many Canadian health researchers. Pfizer has been a “habitual offender,” persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. ”

”Looking at Pfizer's record, one thinks of the phrase “habitual criminal.” But the corporation lacks the mens rea, the guilty mind, associated with criminality in the natural person. Amoral, purely legal persons recognize no moral restraints, so are no more capable of feeling guilt than a robot (Bakan 2004).”
Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR


Pfizer: Corporate Rap Sheet | Corporate Research Project

Yet strangely approved by the FDA.

 

[The Hammer]

Yip, and the brainvaxxed conspirators continue to think they are following science.

Nope I'm following my doctor's advice. Not the internets.

 

[InChrist]

Yet strangely approved by the FDA.

Not so strange when one considers the continual financial conflict of interest and revolving doors between the FDA and pharmaceutical company executives.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nope I'm following my doctor's advice. Not the internets.

Like the doctor, an MD, who told me to my face that my TSH of 66 was normal (the optimal range is 1-2). Like that doctor? Are all doctors that stupid? No, but many people are easily seduced by a degree.

 

[The Hammer]

Like the doctor, an MD, who told me to my face that my TSH of 66 was normal (the optimal range is 1-2). Like that doctor? Are all doctors that stupid? No, but many people are easily seduced by a degree.

 

[ecco]

Not so strange when one considers the continual financial conflict of interest and revolving doors between the FDA and pharmaceutical company executives.

Darn right. I suggest you make note of anything the FDA recommends and do the opposite.

 

[InChrist]

Darn right. I suggest you make note of anything the FDA recommends and do the opposite.

I realize you are being condescending and sarcastic, but in many ( not all ) cases, your suggestion may be quite wise.

“Seventy-one of the 222 drugs approved in the first decade of the millennium were withdrawn, required a "black box" warning on side effects or warranted a safety announcement about new risks, Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, and colleagues reported in JAMA on Tuesday. The study included safety actions through Feb. 28.“
One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval



Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients.
Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs by Donald W. Light, Joel Lexchin, Jonathan J. Darrow :: SSRN

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not so strange when one considers the continual financial conflict of interest and revolving doors between the FDA and pharmaceutical company executives.

CDC as well.

 

[ecco]

I realize you are being condescending and sarcastic, but in many ( not all ) cases, your suggestion may be quite wise.

“Seventy-one of the 222 drugs approved in the first decade of the millennium were withdrawn, required a "black box" warning

I know you didn't bother to check out the source of your copy/paste diatribe.

What is SSRN?
https://support.ssrn.com › knowledgebase

Nov 9, 2018 — SSRN is a searchable online library that enables authors to post their papers and abstracts easily and free of charge.

SSRN is a platform for the dissemination of early-stage research. We are not a peer-reviewed journal, and we do not publish or distribute hard copies.
​

By their own admission, anyone can post anything on their site.



You really need to ask yourself why you believe Facebook posters over real scientists. And, yes, SSRN is no better than Facebook. SSRN is owned by Elsevier.

I'd suggest you do some research, but I know you won't.





ETA: No one is impressed by a wall of copy/pasted text. It just shows an inability to post your own thoughts.

​

 

[We Never Know]

I realize you are being condescending and sarcastic, but in many ( not all ) cases, your suggestion may be quite wise.

“Seventy-one of the 222 drugs approved in the first decade of the millennium were withdrawn, required a "black box" warning on side effects or warranted a safety announcement about new risks, Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, and colleagues reported in JAMA on Tuesday. The study included safety actions through Feb. 28.“
One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval



Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients.
Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs by Donald W. Light, Joel Lexchin, Jonathan J. Darrow :: SSRN

On average, about 4,500 drugs and devices are pulled from U.S. shelves each year. The recalled products have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and in many cases, are widely ingested, injected or implanted before being recalled.

FDA Recalls - How Dangerous Drugs & Devices are Recalled

 

[Wandering Monk]

On average, about 4,500 drugs and devices are pulled from U.S. shelves each year. The recalled products have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and in many cases, are widely ingested, injected or implanted before being recalled.

FDA Recalls - How Dangerous Drugs & Devices are Recalled

Yes, much safer to get your stuff from unregulated Big Supp. LOL

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, much safer to get your stuff from unregulated Big Supp. LOL

Too bad thats all you get out of that post and you didn't even address the content.

Many drugs are out for years before being recalled.

 

[Jainarayan]

View attachment 58005

Yes, yes it is. It casts doubt on doctors’ opinions. Do you accept the first opinion of a doctor or do you get a second opinion if the first doesn’t sound right? Why would you get a second opinion? Oh right! Because doctors can be wrong!

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, much safer to get your stuff from unregulated Big Supp. LOL

Strawman.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, yes it is. It casts doubt on doctors’ opinions. Do you accept the first opinion of a doctor or do you get a second opinion if the first doesn’t sound right? Why would you get a second opinion? Oh right! Because doctors can be wrong!

Individually, yes. Collectively, less so.