Adapted from UK Column –
The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) sought to obtain the data and information relied upon by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to license the Pfizer Covid vaccine via a Freedom of Information Act request. The FoIA request was eventually granted by court order. The judge in the matter required the FDA to release all 451,000 pages of information over eight months, despite the FDA planning to retain the data for 75 years. The schedule for the FDA document release was that Pfizer must produce 451,000 pages at a rate of 55,000 pages a month. This would be complete by December 2023. The Moderna data (plus Pfizer vaccine data for twelve-to fifteen-year-olds) is much larger, at 4.8 million pages, and will be released from the FDA at 180,000 pages a month—which will take about 26 months to mid-2025 (as opposed to the 23½ years that the FDA wanted to take).
Its British counterpart, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and all regulators globally would have had the same Common Technical Documents (CTD) sent to them in application for licensing Covid–19 vaccines. The MHRA would have had access to the same data that is analysed and described in these reports.
The MHRA was the first regulator to approve the Pfizer Covid–19 vaccine, on 1 December 2020, and thus allowed the UK to be the first country to vaccinate for Covid. The MHRA was analysing the Pfizer data at the same time as the data for the AstraZeneca Covid–19 vaccine, which it authorised on 30 December 2022. The Moderna offering, CTD, arrived during this time, when the MHRA had a 25% decline in its workforce.
The level of risk
| Age | Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), UK Source: Health Security Agency |
| 0–19 | 0.0027% |
| 20–29 | 0.014% |
| 30–39 | 0.031% |
| 40–49 | 0.082% |
| 50–59 | 0.275% |
| 60–69 | 0.59% |
| 70+ (non-institutional) | 2.4% |
| 70+ (all) | 5.5% |
These risks should be weighed against (if there are any) the benefits.
In the UK, it appears that 86% of the funding of the MHRA is provided by the pharmaceutical industry, by the very companies whose products the MHRA regulates with the ostensible aim of protecting the public from harm. Indeed, the capture of academia by Big Pharma threatens to undermine evidence-based medicine.
The MHRA is now intending, by its Chief Executive Officer’s own proud admission, to operate as an “enabler” instead of a “regulator”, and as such intends to bring medicines to market within 100 days. Dame June Raine stated:
Here in the UK, the MHRA worked really hard to overcome some of the obstacles within the structure of clinical trials taking place in different jurisdictions, and that was one of the reasons we were able to licence vaccines here in the UK faster than anywhere else: because of the flexibility yet robustness shown by the MHRA. – Faster! faster! This headlong rush for new vaccines
These reports question the validity of the MHRA’s “robustness” of action.
Analysing the Data
Dr. Naomi Wolf, CEO of DailyClout.io, a website devoted to civic transparency, explains how the data was analysed:
We realised the raw documents were impossible to cover in normal journalistic ways, due to their massive scope and the documents are written for scientists and medical researchers. We sent a call for expert volunteers … we received 2000, then 2500, and finally 3500 responses from volunteers, many of whom are experts in their fields. Biostatisticians, lab clinicians, pathologists, anaesthesiologists, sports medicine physicians, cardiologists, research scientists, RNs, and many other related disciplines are represented among these decent, highly-skilled people who offered to read through these difficult, technical documents – pro bono, as a service to humanity (and out of respect as well, in many cases, for their own lifelong commitment to real science, real medicine, and truth in general)... Of course, managing a project in which 3,500* highly trained specialists from all over the world work together virtually on unpacking and reporting on such a massive trove of material, would have been impossible for mere mortals. At first, indeed, we did not know how to organise the thousands of specialists who offered their help. Enter Amy Kelly, who is also a heroine of this story. She is a talented project manager, and now Daily Clout’s COO; and she has a distinguished background in complex organisational projects in various fields... Ms. Kelly managed, seemingly effortlessly, to organise the volunteers into six working teams, with subcommittees of expert readers. (3,500 volunteered and 3,250 worked and continue to work on the project.)
What Pfizer knew:
- The mRNA vaccines did not work.
- The ingredients, including lipid nanoparticles, in the mRNA injections bio-distributed throughout the body in a couple of days, accumulating in the liver, adrenals, spleen and ovaries.
- Pfizer and the FDA knew that the injections damaged the hearts of minors—and yet waited months to inform the public.
- Pfizer sought to hire over a thousand new staffers simply to manage the flood of “adverse events” reports that they were receiving and that the company anticipated receiving. 61 people in the trials died of strokes, and half of the stroke adverse events were within a couple of days after injection.
- Five people in the trials died of liver damage—with, again, many of the liver damage adverse events sustained shortly after the injection.
- Neurological events, cardiac events, strokes, brain haemorrhages, blood clots, lung clots and leg clots were occurring at massive scale.
- Headaches, joint pain, and muscle pain were rampant as adverse events, though these are not disclosed as routine side effect warnings by our agencies.
Dr Wolf continues:
[…[ most seriously of all, you will see a 360-degree attack on human reproductive capability: with harms to sperm count, testes, sperm motility; harms to ovaries, menstrual cycles, placentas; you will see that over 80 per cent of the pregnancies in one section of the Pfizer documents ended in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. You will see that 72 per cent of the adverse events in one section of the documents were in women, and that 16 percent of those were “reproductive disorders,” in Pfizer’s own words.
History has not yet concluded its assessment of what Pfizer—and the FDA, who were in custody of all these documents—has done. We are at the very start of that assessment. But it is clear the following documents, written by impeccably skilled experts, and linked to primary sources, show that a crime has likely been committed against humanity that is unprecedented in its scale. Evidence of fraud would, if found, negate any indemnity for Pfizer.
Read more reports on the Daily Clout –
Latest Updates on Investigations into Pfizer/Moderna.
They are labled by report number – some examples:
- Report 11: Pfizer Vaccine – FDA Fails to Mention Risk of Heart Damage in Teens
- Report 53: 77% of Cardiovascular Adverse Events from Pfizer’s mRNA COVID Shot Occurred in Women, as Well as in People Under Age 65.
- Report 87: In Early 2021, Pfizer Documented Significant Harms and Deaths Following Vaccination with Its mRNA COVID Vaccine. The FDA Did Not Inform the Public.
Because Gibraltar Messenger has featured Mark Sexton and Ken Paxton in previous articles, we draw your attention to these related articles on Daily Clout:
• Secret Pfizer-SA Contract Reveals Govt Knew Efficacy, Side Effects Unknown When Pfizer Launched Its COVID Vaccine
• Letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: Vaccinated Deaths in Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Clinical Trial Not Disclosed to FDA with EUA Data.