The so-called “clinical trials” that Pfizer conducted on its messenger RNA (mRNA) Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” appear to have been completely fraudulent, which means the company could one day be held liable for all associated injuries and deaths.
Documents released in November 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of a court-mandated information dump reveal that enrollment at one particular trial site happened at warp speed, just in time to meet the safety deadline for the FDA’s VRBPAC meeting on Dec. 10, 2020.
This meeting is where the FDA discussed granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech injection in people 16 years of age and older. (Related: The contents of the Pfizer jab were recently shown to “stick” to bodily organs.)
“The allegedly suspicious-looking clinical trial data surrounds ‘the biggest recruiter by far,’ site 1231 (site 4444 was assigned site id 1231) in Argentina,” reported Undercover DC.
“Adding to the confusion, in five short days before the safety deadline (including a Sunday, 9/27/20), the trial recruited 1,275 of the 4,501 people using site number 4444. In just three weeks, the site recruited 4,501 patients – 10% of the entire trial at one site.”
“Overall, Pfizer rapidly recruited roughly 44,000 people for their trial, which took place at 152 locations worldwide and was overseen by numerous investigators, including Dr. Fernando Polack, who led the Argentinian study at Hospital Militar Central.”
Does Pfizer do ANYTHING honestly and above board?
Polack, as explained by investigative reporter Steve Kirsch, holds the position of Scientific Director at the INFANT Foundation in Buenos Aires. This Vanderbilt-affiliated foundation facilitates biomedical translational research and pediatric rotations at hospitals and medical centers throughout the city.
Polack personally coordinates 26 hospitals in Argentina involving 467 doctors who were all immediately recruited into the Pfizer trial. Kirsch says that on paper, the data that resulted “looks too good to be true,” though he says “it’s quite possible they pulled it off” by coordinating the trial in record time.
“So if all 26 hospitals participated fully then that’s 57 patients per week per hospital which is possible if the sites have done this before and have a coordination framework for getting all 26 sites up and running at the same time,” Kirsch writes. “This means that everyone who was doing something else dropped what they were doing to switch over to the trial all at the same time.”
Prof. Norman Fenton from Queen Mary University of London added in his own two-part Substack series that what was supposedly pulled off in Argentina on behalf of Pfizer is “basically impossible.”
“[I]f this really happened,” he wrote, “it would be a wonder of the world, and they should publish the process with pride and win 27 different prizes for it.”
“They claim to have enrolled seven days a week for three weeks with zero gaps. Each patient requires a 250-page case report form,” Fenton added. “The lead investigator seems to have been Fernando Polack.”
“If indeed, the best way to get things done is to give them to busy people, then this was a great choice because, from the look of things, Fernando is one busy fellah and connected up the wazoo to boot. He also works with Vanderbilt, the FDA, and the Infant Foundation, funded by the Gates Foundation and the NIH.”
In the disclosure forms associated with a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on Pfizer’s injection, Polack’s conflicts of interest are revealed. They show personal fees he accepted from not only Pfizer but also Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Regeneron (monoclonal antibodies), Merck & Co. and Novavax.
Should any of this make it to court, Pfizer will be in a whole lot of trouble – and rightfully so. Perhaps justice will eventually prevail.
Sources for this article include:
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.