Apr 15·edited Apr 15Pinned

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.

Expand full comment
Apr 15Liked by The Underdog

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.

Expand full comment
Apr 15Liked by The Underdog

Could it be the intent of that comment was to leave a trail so to speak?

Expand full comment

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



Expand full comment