The COVID-19 agenda promoted by the Biden administration has been heavily criticized among Americans as the White House continues to push the COVID-19 jab. Although the supposed miracle drug data has been scarce, it hasn’t stopped Pfizer and Moderna from making billions in profits. On top of that, the Biden administration called for $10 billion more in COVID-19 aid. But while yet another booster was announced for people 50 years of age or older, Dr. Peter Doshi recently revealed the level of malpractice and incompetence that took place during the pandemic.
In the video, which can be watched below, Dr. Doshi said, “For identification purposes, I’m on the faculty of the University of Maryland and the editor at the BMJ. I have no relevant conflicts of interest, and my comments today on my own. Last November, the BMJ reported the disclosures of a whistleblower named Brooke Jackson, who worked for Ventavia, a contract research company that ran three of the clinical trials sites for Pfizer’s vaccine. Jackson alleged that the company had falsified data on blinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was too slow to follow up on adverse events. She provided the BMJ with company emails, internal documents, text messages, photos, and recordings of her conversation with company employees.”
Presenting slides, the doctor added, “This photo, for example, shows vaccine packaging materials that are only supposed to be seen by unblinded staff just left out in the open. And unblinding may have occurred on a far wider scale. In the heat of a pandemic, it’s not hard to imagine the corners were cut, and mistakes were made. Some mistakes are benign, but others carry serious consequences to data integrity.”
Dr. Doshi admitted that Ventavia could be an extreme outlier, “But we need more than just hope. We need evidence that the data was dealt with properly. We need regulatory oversight. But despite whistleblower Brooke Jackson’s direct complaint to the FDA, FDA never inspected Ventavia. In fact, FDA only inspected nine of the trial’s 150 Plus sites before approving the vaccine, just nine sites. And then Pfizer continues to use Ventavia for trials.”
The editor for BMJ didn’t just harp on Pfizer, noting, “What about Moderna? FDA had over a year and inspected just one of the trial’s 99 sites. How can FDA feel confident in the Moderna data based on a 1% sample? Data integrity requires adequate regulatory oversight. Trustworthy science requires data transparency. It’s been over a year. But anonymized participant-level data remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public. The public paid for these products in the public takes on the balance of benefits and harms post-vaccination. The public has a right to data transparency, and the FDA has an obligation to act.”
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.