Something Is Very Fishy about the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial, Based on My 20 Years of Clinical Trials Research
Maybe not a smoking gun, but smoke
If one goes here one can see the New England Journal of Medicine’s extremely important article reporting the results of the clinical trial of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine. It was on the basis of this report that massive vaccinations were subsequently carried out with this Pfizer vaccine.
Right under the title one can see the authors of this journal article, and in that list of names at the end one can click on “author info & affiliations” to see more of the authors.
By using Google on the names of the authors I discovered (as you can easily do yourself) that three of the first five leading authors (all MDs) are high level Pfizer employees (two Vice Presidents and a Senior Director.)
Likewise, one can see that four of the six leading Ph.D. authors (all lower down than the leading MDs) are Pfizer employees. Note that it is not stated in the journal article which authors did the statistical analyses, but typically it would be a Ph.D. and not an M.D.
This is fishy!
The reason it is fishy to have authors of a journal article reporting on a clinical trial be employees of the pharmaceutical company that produces and hopes to profit from the drug or vaccine investigated by that trial is sort of obvious, isn’t it? People who are biased to find the vaccine to be safe and efficacious should not be the ones responsible for analyzing the trial’s data and reporting on its conclusions. Do we allow referees for a sports event to place bets on the outcome before the game?
In my 20 years of clinical trials experience as a co-author of many journal articles, I never had co-authors who were employees of the pharmaceutical company that provided the experimental drug or vaccine.
I was employed by Harvard University as a Senior Research Scientist (I retired after 20 years in 2012) in which capacity I served as the statistician for numerous clinical trials. I was responsible for the design and analysis of the trial, and for co-authoring the journal article reporting its results and conclusions. One can go here to see a list of some of my co-authored journal articles and in particular one can go here to see the abstract of an article I co-authored in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In my experience, it was always the case that the clinical trials I and my colleagues at Harvard (specifically the Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) worked on were independently conducted by an organization that was specifically NOT the pharmaceutical company providing the drug or vaccine under investigation, namely the federal government’s National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, the data from the various clinics where patients were enrolled into the trials I was involved with were collected and managed by an organization that was specifically NOT the pharmaceutical company, namely the Frontier Science Foundation.
Maybe not a smoking gun, but smoke!
I am not saying that I have evidence that Pfizer did anything to render the conclusions of its clinical trial invalid. But I am saying that it is suspicious that Pfizer has so many of its own top level employees as co-authors of the journal article in question.
I have not been able to determine—with Google searching—which organization actually had independent control and management of the Pfizer clinical trial. I’m guessing it was Pfizer itself.1 I hope somebody has already tracked this information down and will share it with me and others. But why is it so hard to find out? That too is fishy.
Who trusts Big $ these days?
More and more, people are not trusting what Big $ tells us, for obvious reasons. High on the list of corporations that are not trusted are the pharmaceutical companies. Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, back in 2009 wrote a scathing article in the New York Review of Books, titled “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption,” relating her experience of pharmaceutical companies using lies to promote (in medical journals) and profit big time from their drugs. In 2008 the NYT headlined an article with “Experts conclude Pfizer manipulated Studies” reporting:
“The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.”
In light of all this, I think it is fair to say that the Pfizer clinical trial of its Covid-19 vaccine doesn’t exactly pass the smell test with flying colors.
Here is a page from the trial’s protocol document that is linked to from the NEJM article reporting the results of the trial, and it strongly suggests that the trial was a Pfizer in-house study; curiously, this protocol document does not list the names of the study chair, statistician, etc. :
None of the protocol documents for clinical trials I was involved with had a pharmaceutical company logo on them like this document does.
Very glad you are catching up with us John, as many of us have been aware of this collusion for a couple for years.The MAIN person doing this research is Naomi Wolf who has assembled a large team to sift through a couple of tons of Pfizer documents and finding shocking evidence, not merely a smoking gun, as it were,but smoking howitzers, cannons, and missiles. symbolically speaking.
Thanks for pointing out the fact that the five leading authors of the Pfizer study were Pfizer employees and high ranking ones, at that. I don’t claim to be an expert on the Pfizer study which has been reported ad nauseum in the scientific literature as well as in the mainstream media in an obvious effort to herd the world’s population into the corral of “vaccine” injections. It was obvious to me as an MD with board certification in a surgical specialty that the Pfizer trials were specious and deceptive and couldn’t be trusted and were just another part of a dictatorial rollout of dangerous and authoritarian policies including harmful masking, “lockdowns” (lockups?), social distancing, business and school closures, and so on. As far as the studies were concerned the deceptive use of “95% effective”, rather than publicizing the absolute numbers, which were closer to zero percent improvement, were all it took for me to discount the study entirely. Unfortunately the mass media did manage to frighten a very large portion of the population into taking these poisonous injections, and that mistake is now being paid for in spades, even though the actual statistics of increased mortality, disability, and injury from the poisonous shots is being carefully manipulated and/or hidden throughout the world. The carnage is so widespread, however, that most people who are aware of the real, as opposed to fictional, narrative, can see with their own eyes that their circle of social contacts who are injected are suffering and dying in unbelievable numbers and the only plausible explanation is the injections. On a separate note, John, I noted that some of the studies that you were a co-author of had to do with AIDS and funding came from the now-infamous NIAID, headed by Chief Covid injection salesman (murderer), Anthony Fauci. I have only peripherally paid attention to the AIDS story, mainly because I was just too busy in the operating room to be too concerned about its origins, etc. However, with the advent of Covid and all the lies and deception I am beginning to spend some time on trying to understand what AIDS actually was. As I’m sure you know, Luc Montaignier, among other notable scientists involved, declared that HIV did not actually cause AIDS. I haven’t yet read Peter Deusberg’s book, who claimed the same. You seem to have been heavily involved in the AIDS story. Perhaps you can shed some light on this question? Have you read The Perth Group’s paper: https://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf. ? I am part way through this and would be curious to hear your opinion.