Just to add a comment: I'm hoping readers are not burnt out by the media's abuse of the term 'racism' highlighting trivial, non-racist elements, such they view this as more of the same, and feel disinclined to engage.
Before arriving at this conclusion, as noted in the article, we examined the comment from every possible angle and light, hoping this would not be the case. The Daily Beagle wasn't even examining the race of the participants to begin with; the original objective was to see if Pfizer were covering up adverse event reports (they were). It is Pfizer who chose to use this method.
The obtuse remark and off-hand comment by the researcher, coupled with experience on clinical records, is what prompted the deeper dig. A debate was held on importance, and how prominently it should feature in the article.
Should the death cover-up feature prominently, with a side-note to the racist remark? Or should the racism feature prominently, with a side-note to the death?
It was held, given The Daily Beagle's coverage of numerous death cover-ups by medical and pharmaceutical companies (EMA leaks, mRNA instability, Janssen sinus thrombosis deaths), that most readers will now be familiar with pharmaceutical companies covering up deaths.
It would be 'just one more story' in a large pile of 'toss it in with the pile of others'. It would work to Pfizer's favour because we'd be unintentionally burying the lead of racist interpretations in what should be important clinical data. The comment has wider, and larger implications as well, such as:
1) Why did no other clinical researcher on the team raise an issue with this?
2) What other datasets or clinical trials has the comment writer corrupted?
3) Why did the clinical site supervisor not notice?
4) Why did Pfizer not notice?
5) Why did the FDA not notice?
And it has two possible interpretations, the 'easiest' to swallow but with damning ramifications, is because none of them read the reports, and the comment writer knew that, meaning no safety data has actually been reviewed. It hasn't even been read. The FDA commits perjury every time it insists on record it has reviewed the data; criminal dereliction of duty resulting in mass numbers of deaths.
The alternative is the FDA and Pfizer declare they've read the safety data, but then end up in the trap of admitting they're okay with overt racism exhibiting major bias in their datasets to the point it distorts adverse events, also confirming the clinical data is essentially fraudulent and they approved this.
So: either admit you intentionally did not read the reports, or admit you intentionally approved the fraudulent reports. Explosive story either way.
Rather ignorant and unprofessional of Pfizer but after the coked up exec that O'Keefe caught, I've reached the conclusion that these are silly, unserious people. I thank God that I only take one medicine. We're supposed to trust our bodies to these jokers; thanks but no. I personally think it's a research assistant trolling. The flow from silliness to death was a good contrast and just shows Pfizer will stoop to any low.
The problem isn't that it's 'just trolling'. This isn't on a social media post or in a forum thread, this isn't the off-hand remarks of a teenager.
This is supposed to be a serious medical comment made by an experienced medical researcher taking part in a medical investigation with above board practices and ethics. Would you accept being treated or assessed by someone who says 'all white men are pigs'? Or 'all old people should just die'? Would you accept that person's data if they presented it? I know I wouldn't. The personal bias would contaminate the dataset.
This was officially approved. If they're this fraudulent on the cause of adverse event to the point of overt racism (or 'trolling'), what else are they fraudulent on?
I noticed it on the first read of the document. I'm not even trained to spot these things. I wasn't even looking for it (I did not think Pfizer would be that brazen). If I noticed it, an experienced senior site supervisor would have easily. The fact it is still there, submitted as a final document to the FDA, who in turn accepted it, is damning.
The FDA - who censored the death dates prior to FOIA publication and thus must have read it - accepted it. In-fact, they still accept that fraudulent dataset as we speak. It is being used to determine judgements that harm and kill children.
The seemingly offhand remark is tip of the iceberg.
It is literally fabricated data. Fantasy. Made-up. 'Trolling' is not acceptable data, ever.
I wholly agree with you. I don't want these people anywhere near working in health. It just shows the rampant incompetence that is overt in the US these days. I'll use the anecdote of my employer: I receive more emails touting various DEI or "Green" initiatives than about our actual corporate mission.
This whole thing rises to the level of criminal and would probably qualify under the RICO statutes but no lawyer would take the case because of the danger.
I wouldn't attribute to incompetence what is malice.
None of these actions are accidental. The lies, the cover-up, the refusal to publish information, the constant repeated rhetoric of lies, all of it is malice.
Other than taking it at face value, it is hard to determine what the motivation was behind the comment, as there's no way to know what the writer was thinking.
If we treat this in the wider context that there's this whole eugenics bent - killing off the elderly (Midazolam murders), killing off the poor and mentally ill (MAID in Canada), killing the weak (dehydration in ICU), sterilising the dumb (LNPs in ovaries), and killing the children of the ignorant (jabbing children, giving myocarditis/pericarditis) - we have to adopt the viewpoint maybe the researchers who don't blow the whistle, share either an implicit or explicit agreement with this viewpoint.
Albert Bourla, being a veterinarian, is neither qualified, nor of the compassionate viewpoint (he still peddles lies on mainstream media the shot has no side effects despite factsheets clearly showing otherwise).
And, of course, he supports child murder if it affects his companies' bottom line:
As we know, the origins of such movement, the "Negro project", was the invention of Margaret Sanger and implemented by, at the time, the Birth Control Federation of America, which is now Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or 'Planned Parenthood' for short.
Pfizer was established in New York by two German entrepreneurs, Charles Pfizer and his cousin Charles F. Erhart, although in the late 1800s, it would be hard not to imagine a pro-German bias. Given the wider context, one wonders if this pro-German bias goes so far as adopting Nazi German views. Pfizer's disturbing actions seem to suggest as such.
Either way, their blithe arrogance makes it easier for us to establish the case. The fact the FDA approved this as well is damning.
Just to add a comment: I'm hoping readers are not burnt out by the media's abuse of the term 'racism' highlighting trivial, non-racist elements, such they view this as more of the same, and feel disinclined to engage.
Before arriving at this conclusion, as noted in the article, we examined the comment from every possible angle and light, hoping this would not be the case. The Daily Beagle wasn't even examining the race of the participants to begin with; the original objective was to see if Pfizer were covering up adverse event reports (they were). It is Pfizer who chose to use this method.
The obtuse remark and off-hand comment by the researcher, coupled with experience on clinical records, is what prompted the deeper dig. A debate was held on importance, and how prominently it should feature in the article.
Should the death cover-up feature prominently, with a side-note to the racist remark? Or should the racism feature prominently, with a side-note to the death?
It was held, given The Daily Beagle's coverage of numerous death cover-ups by medical and pharmaceutical companies (EMA leaks, mRNA instability, Janssen sinus thrombosis deaths), that most readers will now be familiar with pharmaceutical companies covering up deaths.
It would be 'just one more story' in a large pile of 'toss it in with the pile of others'. It would work to Pfizer's favour because we'd be unintentionally burying the lead of racist interpretations in what should be important clinical data. The comment has wider, and larger implications as well, such as:
1) Why did no other clinical researcher on the team raise an issue with this?
2) What other datasets or clinical trials has the comment writer corrupted?
3) Why did the clinical site supervisor not notice?
4) Why did Pfizer not notice?
5) Why did the FDA not notice?
And it has two possible interpretations, the 'easiest' to swallow but with damning ramifications, is because none of them read the reports, and the comment writer knew that, meaning no safety data has actually been reviewed. It hasn't even been read. The FDA commits perjury every time it insists on record it has reviewed the data; criminal dereliction of duty resulting in mass numbers of deaths.
The alternative is the FDA and Pfizer declare they've read the safety data, but then end up in the trap of admitting they're okay with overt racism exhibiting major bias in their datasets to the point it distorts adverse events, also confirming the clinical data is essentially fraudulent and they approved this.
So: either admit you intentionally did not read the reports, or admit you intentionally approved the fraudulent reports. Explosive story either way.
Rather ignorant and unprofessional of Pfizer but after the coked up exec that O'Keefe caught, I've reached the conclusion that these are silly, unserious people. I thank God that I only take one medicine. We're supposed to trust our bodies to these jokers; thanks but no. I personally think it's a research assistant trolling. The flow from silliness to death was a good contrast and just shows Pfizer will stoop to any low.
The problem isn't that it's 'just trolling'. This isn't on a social media post or in a forum thread, this isn't the off-hand remarks of a teenager.
This is supposed to be a serious medical comment made by an experienced medical researcher taking part in a medical investigation with above board practices and ethics. Would you accept being treated or assessed by someone who says 'all white men are pigs'? Or 'all old people should just die'? Would you accept that person's data if they presented it? I know I wouldn't. The personal bias would contaminate the dataset.
This was officially approved. If they're this fraudulent on the cause of adverse event to the point of overt racism (or 'trolling'), what else are they fraudulent on?
I noticed it on the first read of the document. I'm not even trained to spot these things. I wasn't even looking for it (I did not think Pfizer would be that brazen). If I noticed it, an experienced senior site supervisor would have easily. The fact it is still there, submitted as a final document to the FDA, who in turn accepted it, is damning.
The FDA - who censored the death dates prior to FOIA publication and thus must have read it - accepted it. In-fact, they still accept that fraudulent dataset as we speak. It is being used to determine judgements that harm and kill children.
The seemingly offhand remark is tip of the iceberg.
It is literally fabricated data. Fantasy. Made-up. 'Trolling' is not acceptable data, ever.
I wholly agree with you. I don't want these people anywhere near working in health. It just shows the rampant incompetence that is overt in the US these days. I'll use the anecdote of my employer: I receive more emails touting various DEI or "Green" initiatives than about our actual corporate mission.
This whole thing rises to the level of criminal and would probably qualify under the RICO statutes but no lawyer would take the case because of the danger.
I wouldn't attribute to incompetence what is malice.
None of these actions are accidental. The lies, the cover-up, the refusal to publish information, the constant repeated rhetoric of lies, all of it is malice.
Could it be the intent of that comment was to leave a trail so to speak?
Other than taking it at face value, it is hard to determine what the motivation was behind the comment, as there's no way to know what the writer was thinking.
If we treat this in the wider context that there's this whole eugenics bent - killing off the elderly (Midazolam murders), killing off the poor and mentally ill (MAID in Canada), killing the weak (dehydration in ICU), sterilising the dumb (LNPs in ovaries), and killing the children of the ignorant (jabbing children, giving myocarditis/pericarditis) - we have to adopt the viewpoint maybe the researchers who don't blow the whistle, share either an implicit or explicit agreement with this viewpoint.
Albert Bourla, being a veterinarian, is neither qualified, nor of the compassionate viewpoint (he still peddles lies on mainstream media the shot has no side effects despite factsheets clearly showing otherwise).
And, of course, he supports child murder if it affects his companies' bottom line:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/10/abortion-pill-ruling-pfizer-ceo-signs-letter-in-support-of-fda.html
As we know, the origins of such movement, the "Negro project", was the invention of Margaret Sanger and implemented by, at the time, the Birth Control Federation of America, which is now Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or 'Planned Parenthood' for short.
Pfizer was established in New York by two German entrepreneurs, Charles Pfizer and his cousin Charles F. Erhart, although in the late 1800s, it would be hard not to imagine a pro-German bias. Given the wider context, one wonders if this pro-German bias goes so far as adopting Nazi German views. Pfizer's disturbing actions seem to suggest as such.
Either way, their blithe arrogance makes it easier for us to establish the case. The fact the FDA approved this as well is damning.
Hello, yes, here is my run down of the methods that power couple pharma and regulation use to make toxic drugs look effective and how they hide adverse events https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/how-power-couple-pharma-regulation
jo
🐒