Pfizer Whistleblower Lawsuit Unsealed - 400 Pages Of Evidence

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Yes it can, it expires in 2014, unless the is renewed again.

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I have to wonder can they still use the liability shield if fraud is involved? I'm kind of leaning towards no.

The EUA probably covers that too. I guess the EUA is never going away.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Yes, in the case of fraud.

An EUA is contingent on certain safety protocols being followed, and certain data being obtained. If it's found that one party breached these conditions by supplying falsified data. or by knowingly withholding prejudicial data, then they can be deemed to have violated the terms under which the EUA was granted.

The issue here is whether any of the parties actually have perpetrated fraud. The main case here involving the whistleblower revolves around a subcontractor who has been accused of violating laboratory safety standards, and of mismanaging confidential data that could prejudice a blind trial. These aren't considered to be fraud, and wouldn't effect the EUA because they involve a private laboratory that wasn't party to the EUA.

The rest of the cases are either hypothetical or argue over semantics, and seem to be primarily designed to target public confidence in the shot, rather than to create a serious legal case.

The accusations make a claim of fraud, and if true could potentially void the EUA with that single company, but the evidence is lacking and it seems likely that there will either be no case to answer or that the case will be wound down with material findings that don't relate to vax safety and thus won't break the EUA.

In short, expect the hammer to be dropped on the lab, and the case against big pharma to be dismissed.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Then we must hope the lab employees were so intelligent to record and document all communication with Pfizer and or friends of Pfizer, so they in turn can fold and say... "they held a gun to pur head and told us to...."

Which is most likely what happened.

Pfizer has since 2000, paid out in lawsuits and settlements around 10.2 billion dollars.

And anyone wants us to believe they are decent and honest? # that.... stop being so #ing cognitive biased...


Oh sry btw... that last part was directed towards Pharms fanbois, not you personally... 🤗

a reply to: flice

I'm no fan of big pharma, especially given their part in the opioid crisis, and I'm well aware of all of the lawsuits, but this ... I honestly don't think that they're deliberately killing people, or even covering up their deaths.

They probably fudged the numbers a little to make the vax seem more effective than it really is, but this is mostly business as usual. Like Apple exaggerating the battery life on a phone, or GM exaggerating the MPG on their latest truck. You expect things like that so you take what they say with a grain of salt.

But what's been alleged regarding the vax is so big that you'd expect them to be rushing to cover their backs. But they aren't. They're not even rushing out a vax 2.0. Which either means that the vax is likely more or less what it's supposed to be.

Every which way I run the numbers I just can't find the level of death and destruction that people like the OP claim there is.

For example, there are certain canary groups who you'd expect to be hit hard, like AIDS patients, and they're simply not doing what you'd expect if the vax was dangerous.

originally posted by: Ektar
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Probably to early to know yet but I wonder if the Vax induced HIV , VAIDS, Herpes, & etc will be able to infect non vaxxed
via sexually transmitted & other? Are the tables turning in that the un jabbed has to worry about the jabbed? It would
be horrible if that kind of segregation happens, we all have much to worry about already.
Just something that entered the mind while reading all the side effects just published.

Cheers
Ektar

I asked this question a long time ago and the thread was mostly mocked.

To me, since these mRNA vaccines began being pushed, if a woman is vaxxed it ends my interest.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What there wasn't was any evidence of malpractice in regards to vax safety data, or any accusations of a coverup. In fact all of the breaches were material in nature, and did not involve any conspiracy worth its salt.

You don't know that. Here's a excerpt from your link...

Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks. In a list of “action items” circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to “Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.” One of them was “verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,” a note indicates.

We don't even know if the two events in the last sentence are related. Data was changed. There is nothing specific in the last sentence stating that noting late entry of data was the actual change. What we do know is that a list of "action items" that the company created mentions "falsifying data".

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: elementalgrove

The accusations don't actually relate to "vax damage". They're mostly health and safety violations at a sub contractor's lab, and accusations that the private data of participants wasn't properly secured, in breach of blind protocols.

Link

Nothing from this lawsuit will address anything that anti-vaxxers are hoping for.

If anything this is more a matter for the management at the contractor's lab to deal with.

Focus on the lawsuit all you want, but Pfizer documents are now being released showing what Pfizer did know were adverse reactions to the vaccine without telling the public.

See pages 30 - 38 for an extensive listing.

phmpt.org...

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Every which way I run the numbers I just can't find the level of death and destruction that people like the OP claim there is.

Here's a summary source along with a link to the actual study if you want to look it over...

Official data: Fully vaccinated people account for 9 of 10 COVID deaths

www.wnd.com...

However, between Jan 24 and Feb. 20, there were 9,230 COVID-19 hospitalizations in England. The fully vaccinated accounted for 6,689 of them, the triple vaccinated 4,936 and the unvaccinated 2,341.

During that period, there were 4,861 COVID-19 deaths, with the triple vaccinated population accounting for 3,120 of them. The unvaccinated population accounted for only 559.

Here's the 58 page report/study from the UK Health Security Agency from which this article was written:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

a reply to: Deetermined

Data was changed. There is nothing specific in the last sentence stating that noting late entry of data was the actual change. What we do know is that a list of "action items" that the company created mentions "falsifying data".

Doesn't this relate to lab protocol violations, not to changing vax data?

Either way, this wouldn't blow back on to Pfizer as it's the actions of an independent lab. Pfizer can't be held responsible for this.

a reply to: Deetermined

Those stats don't show what you think they show.

When taken in context they show that the more doses of the vax person has the less likely they are to be seriously sick, especially in elderly or vulnerable groups. Just look at the percentage that each groups represents among the total population who are eligible for the vax, then look at their ages.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: elementalgrove

The accusations don't actually relate to "vax damage". They're mostly health and safety violations at a sub contractor's lab, and accusations that the private data of participants wasn't properly secured, in breach of blind protocols.

Link

Nothing from this lawsuit will address anything that anti-vaxxers are hoping for.

If anything this is more a matter for the management at the contractor's lab to deal with.

Focus on the lawsuit all you want, but Pfizer documents are now being released showing what Pfizer did know were adverse reactions to the vaccine without telling the public.

See pages 30 - 38 for an extensive listing.

phmpt.org...

We knew in advance that there would be adverse reactions ... because there ALWAYS is.

All that you're really doing is telling me that Pfizer openly admitted to there being adverse reactions, but played them down. They wanted to manage how the information was received, not cover it up.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles

“...The United States DoD would not have paid Pfizer if it knew that the clinical trial protocol was not complied with.....

But what IF they did know?

There may potentially be some very powerful people in the Government, not only the drug companies, that will be doing whatever it takes to ensure that it is not proven that they knew all along. Making sure the drug company does not go down would be the best way to save themselves. Stop the trail in the beginning, before it begins to lead to them.

Thank you for making that most excellent point, I agree completely.

Pfizer has pleaded guilty to criminal medical fraud at least twice in this country starting in 2004. Essentially Pfizer has been operating a continuing criminal enterprise for all these years, yet government regulatory agencies act like it never happened.

YES, government knew of this fraud too. It simply looked the other way and thereby enabled the fraud.

a reply to: Salander

Pay out time, remember when the market crashes the pharma never got a bailout well, they got the biggest bailout of their life, I mean billions of dollars it, but at the expenses of innocent victims.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Salander

Pay out time, remember when the market crashes the pharma never got a bailout well, they got the biggest bailout of their life, I mean billions of dollars it, but at the expenses of innocent victims.

Got to find and punish those who generated Covid-19 for Pfizer and the US Government to use as a tool for their own purposes.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Salander

Pay out time, remember when the market crashes the pharma never got a bailout well, they got the biggest bailout of their life, I mean billions of dollars it, but at the expenses of innocent victims.

Got to find and punish those who generated Covid-19 for Pfizer and the US Government to use as a tool for their own purposes.

Given the timing, it could well have been someone close to the Trump administration.

Remind me who was it that advised Trump not to close the borders, and who let those people flying from China out of quarantine in the AFB in Alaska?

We've all seen that the liberals "plan" was to divide people socially using racial and gender politics. It's a big leap to go from that to unleashing a plandemic. Especially given that once covid was in the county they still kept pushing the same old race and gender agenda.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

This crap benefited the democrats no the Trump administration also fascist fauci was pushed by the CDC during Trump because he was the best of the best, piece of crap.

Trump never really like him at all.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: elementalgrove

The accusations don't actually relate to "vax damage". They're mostly health and safety violations at a sub contractor's lab, and accusations that the private data of participants wasn't properly secured, in breach of blind protocols.

Link

Nothing from this lawsuit will address anything that anti-vaxxers are hoping for.

If anything this is more a matter for the management at the contractor's lab to deal with.

Focus on the lawsuit all you want, but Pfizer documents are now being released showing what Pfizer did know were adverse reactions to the vaccine without telling the public.

See pages 30 - 38 for an extensive listing.

phmpt.org...

We knew in advance that there would be adverse reactions ... because there ALWAYS is.

All that you're really doing is telling me that Pfizer openly admitted to there being adverse reactions, but played them down. They wanted to manage how the information was received, not cover it up.

Theres more adverse effects than known medical conditions in the entire world. There's things in here no one has ever heard of. Get out of here with "we knew there would be adverse effects." There's 1000s of them.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

All that you're really doing is telling me that Pfizer openly admitted to there being adverse reactions, but played them down.

"openly admitted"???

Maybe you missed the word "confidential" at the bottom of every page of the report, which means they wanted to share the information internally, but had no intentions of "openly" admitting it to the public.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Those stats don't show what you think they show.

When taken in context they show that the more doses of the vax person has the less likely they are to be seriously sick,

I don't know how you figured that. Based on the information, if 4,861 people died from Covid and 3,120 of them were people who were TRIPLE VAXXED, then they account for over 64% of the total deaths between January 24th and Feb 20th.

Plus, if 75% of the population is vaccinated, then the hospitalization numbers reflect the exact same percentages. 9,230 were admitted, 6,689 of them were vaccinated and 2,341 were not. So honestly, how can anyone say that the vaccine will prevent you from being hospitalized either? The percentages are the same.