I don't know if many people were/are aware of this. This is why the FDA didn't want the trial data released for another 75 years. - Originally from my blog WindUpRubberFinger 08/20/21
It seems that informed consent is not required when a pharmaceutical is released under the category of emergency use authorization for countermeasures against bioweapons. See Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova. Latypova addresses this in her recent interview by Doc Malick.
I know what Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova are referring to, but this is referencing the vaccine trials. I'm not entirely sure that the vaccine trials are considered the same as the finished product legally.
The study concluded:
***
While the COVID-19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID-19 vaccine risks.
***
My point is that they didn't even let the people in the trial know the risks, while at the same time telling the public that everything is going to be just fine.
Another possibility is that the "trials" were entirely fraudulent, because they weren't technically "needed." The vaccines were listed as Medical Countermeasures, which don't require FDA approval.
That might also be why the trial data is such a secret.
Remember that one lady who worked for Ventavia, Brook Jackson? She sued Pfizer because of the following:
* Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
* Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
* Protocol deviations not being reported
* Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
* Mislabeled laboratory specimens, and
* Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
***
“People working in clinical research are terrified of FDA audits,” Jill Fisher told The BMJ, but added that the agency rarely does anything other than inspect paperwork, usually months after a trial has ended. “I don’t know why they’re so afraid of them,” she said. But she said she was surprised that the agency failed to inspect Ventavia after an employee had filed a complaint. “You would think if there’s a specific and credible complaint that they would have to investigate that,” Fisher said.
***
Brook Jackson was concerned because the trial was producing inaccurate data. However, the trial was likely just a "front" anyway. That's why Pfizer didn't care about how the data was recorded, because it was all nonsense anyway. They just needed to look like they were testing stuff.
The FDA didn't follow up on Brook Jackson's complaints, because the vaccines were legally covered as MCMs -- the FDA has no jurisdiction over MCMs.
The lack of informed consent on the issue of ADE, along with the grievous absence of long-term safety studies, has been a crime against humanity. Moreover, both Fauci and Walensky are the first who should stand trial for this crime since they were both well aware of this risk from the outset:
They *knew* all along. That's why the FDA trial data was supposed to be S-L-O-W walked for 75 years. They could always claim that their current mRNA concoction was different from those studied in years past -- but it wasn't and they knew this. That's why they wanted to hide the study details.
There were papers published detailing the issues with mRNA tech dating back to well before the COVID-19 scare. I detail that here:
It seems that informed consent is not required when a pharmaceutical is released under the category of emergency use authorization for countermeasures against bioweapons. See Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova. Latypova addresses this in her recent interview by Doc Malick.
I know what Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova are referring to, but this is referencing the vaccine trials. I'm not entirely sure that the vaccine trials are considered the same as the finished product legally.
The study concluded:
***
While the COVID-19 global health emergency justifies accelerated vaccine trials of candidates with known liabilities, such an acceleration is not inconsistent with additional attention paid to heightened informed consent procedures specific to COVID-19 vaccine risks.
***
My point is that they didn't even let the people in the trial know the risks, while at the same time telling the public that everything is going to be just fine.
If Lone Star is right, the problem is that *everyone* who received the C-19 was actually in a later stage of the trial:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/7c8bb36e2dbb
Another possibility is that the "trials" were entirely fraudulent, because they weren't technically "needed." The vaccines were listed as Medical Countermeasures, which don't require FDA approval.
That might also be why the trial data is such a secret.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Remember that one lady who worked for Ventavia, Brook Jackson? She sued Pfizer because of the following:
* Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
* Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
* Protocol deviations not being reported
* Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
* Mislabeled laboratory specimens, and
* Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
***
“People working in clinical research are terrified of FDA audits,” Jill Fisher told The BMJ, but added that the agency rarely does anything other than inspect paperwork, usually months after a trial has ended. “I don’t know why they’re so afraid of them,” she said. But she said she was surprised that the agency failed to inspect Ventavia after an employee had filed a complaint. “You would think if there’s a specific and credible complaint that they would have to investigate that,” Fisher said.
***
Brook Jackson was concerned because the trial was producing inaccurate data. However, the trial was likely just a "front" anyway. That's why Pfizer didn't care about how the data was recorded, because it was all nonsense anyway. They just needed to look like they were testing stuff.
The FDA didn't follow up on Brook Jackson's complaints, because the vaccines were legally covered as MCMs -- the FDA has no jurisdiction over MCMs.
Take a peek at the timeline for these events:
https://ogre.substack.com/p/pro-vaxxer-trump-is-lining-up-to
Totally fraudulent ~ Definitely . . . . The whole thing was criminal.
I think Watt would be the one to ask.
The lack of informed consent on the issue of ADE, along with the grievous absence of long-term safety studies, has been a crime against humanity. Moreover, both Fauci and Walensky are the first who should stand trial for this crime since they were both well aware of this risk from the outset:
> ADE was a known risk: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/09b9abcc9278
> Fauci & Walensky knew: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/a2ec21d7f52a
> More on ADE: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/2e7af31cffb2
They *knew* all along. That's why the FDA trial data was supposed to be S-L-O-W walked for 75 years. They could always claim that their current mRNA concoction was different from those studied in years past -- but it wasn't and they knew this. That's why they wanted to hide the study details.
There were papers published detailing the issues with mRNA tech dating back to well before the COVID-19 scare. I detail that here:
https://ogre.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theorists-advocate-3-covid
💯