Doctors for Covid Ethics have revealed that Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) did not validate Pfizer’s mRNA vaccination trials before authorising their emergency use.
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were submitted to the MHRA on June 7 and July 31, 2021, asking for documents regarding the temporary authorisation of the experimental Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines.
According to British alternative news site The Exposé:
“Specifically, the FOI (FOI 21/632) sought:
1. Any documents requesting access from the sponsor [Pfizer and AstraZeneca] to the raw data (patient-level anonymised data or equivalent patient-level data).
2. Confirmation as to whether the MHRA holds the patient-level data (approximately 70,000 records) from these applications or whether these were restricted from access or assessment by the sponsor. If they were supplied, the format in which these records were supplied and how they were hosted at the MHRA (e.g. paper, or electronic database – specify format such as MySQL, MsSQL databases, CSV, excel files).
3. Any documents confirming that a process for analysing the raw data from the sponsor was undertaken and the result of that process (e.g. meeting minutes or equivalent), including the qualifications (and names if appropriate) of the committee (if any), which has undertaken the review of the raw data.”
This bombshell follows another Freedom of Information request to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which revealed the administration approved Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine without inspecting the medical giant’s patient-level data (IPD).
“Instead of verifying the data, the TGA simply rubber-stamped the Pfizer vaccine, accepting on face value Pfizer’s misleading claim that their product showed ‘95% efficacy to prevent COVID-19 infection’,” states The Exposé.
“Since then, worldwide data, particularly in the UK and Israel (but also in smaller countries such as Iceland and Gibraltar where vaccination rates approach 100% yet cases are still rising), have shown disappointing real-world effectiveness, in contrast to Pfizer’s claims. Given Pfizer’s legal history of healthcare fraud, it was imperative that the drug regulators verify the drug manufacturers’ submission data prior to COVID vaccine approval.”
In response to the second FOI request, the MHRA stated that they gave the job of analysing Pfizer patient-level data to Public Health England. However, Public Health England claim they had no access to the data.
Analysis of this COVID-19 vaccine trial data is crucial for the public’s health and safety.
Has any significant government health body accessed and analysed Pfizer’s trial data? The public cannot trust a Big Pharma giant with a legal history of healthcare fraud and potentially dangerous medical products to honestly report their investigations, especially considering the fortunes at stake for the company.
But then again, it is probably difficult for most of the public to trust the government anyway.
Plus, Pfizer’s conclusions have featured numerical inconsistencies and non-scientifically-sound conclusions. An analysis by Doctors for Covid Ethics suggests Pfizer’s clinical trial reports are unlikely and contradictory.
For example, the Pfizer reports claim a sudden, uniform wave of immunity across all vaccine recipients on day 12 after their injections, a biologically implausible result.
Furthermore, the sudden immunity allegedly came before neutralising antibodies appeared in the bloodstream. These antibodies began rising nine days later and supposedly achieved maximum levels on day 28, over two weeks after Pfizer claims clinical immunity set in.
Different analyses of Pfizer’s data also reveal self-contradictory data sets, meaning one must be false.
“Since, as discussed, the sudden onset of immunity implied by [the results] lacks any biological plausibility, it is most likely that it is this data set which was fabricated,” states the expert analysis.
Upload Layout: Candy