Brook Jackson, the clinical trials superviser who blew the whistle on Pfizer over its testing of Covid vaccines, has announced that a court date has been assigned to her case.
It will be held on March 1, 2023 at 2:00 pm at the Jack Brooks Federal Courthouse in Beaumont, Texas. The critical point: “All parties are required to attend in person.”
See you in court, criminals! pic.twitter.com/Tg1kuc2gJr
— Brook Jackson 💜 (@IamBrookJackson) February 18, 2023
“See you in court, criminals!” she said on Saturday.
She provided a copy of the legal document showing the court date and location. The following legal motions will be under consideration at the court hearing:
- Pfizer’s Motion to Dismiss Realtor’s Amended Complaint
- ICON PLC’s Motion to Dismiss Relator’s Amended Complaint
- Ventavia Research Group, LLC’s Corrected Motion to Dismiss
The case is extraordinary in many regards, but most concerning is that the United States has taken a position against the U.S. citizen seeking accountability against the allegedly offending corporate interests.
On October 4, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) took “the extraordinary step of filing a Statement of Interest Supporting Dismissal of the Amended Complaint,” the case notes. “It is not unprecedented for the Government to file statements of interest supporting plaintiffs in declined qui tam actions. But the Statement of Interest here is entirely different. It sides with the defendant, Pfizer, and the other defendants, and urges the Court to dismiss Relator’s lawsuit because it fails to identify any ‘false or misleading’ claims, its allegations are ‘implausible,’ and the United States continues to have ‘full confidence’ in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”
However, Pfizer has made several ‘false or misleading’ claims. Firstly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla has falsely implied that the mRNA vaccines “stop the spread” of viral infection and transmission.
“Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said in a release in December 2021. A Harvard-led international study published in September 2021 had established that “increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.”
Pfizer continued to back the “safe and 100% effective” line, even in regards to young persons at miniscule risk from the Covid disease.
In an April 2021 release, Pfizer released the implausible results that the vaccine “was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent.”
The CDC found in July 2021 that the viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated were similar. Thus, the company’s mRNA shots could not be “100% effective” at preventing “cases.”
“Today, some of those data were published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), demonstrating that Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people,” the CDC report said. “High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”
Pfizer had also claimed that there were no “cases” among young adolescents in its clinical trials of the Covid mRNA shots versus a placebo in April.
In a study of 2,260 U.S. volunteers aged 12 to 15, preliminary data showed “there were no cases of COVID-19 among fully vaccinated adolescents compared to 18 among those given placebo shots,” Pfizer reported.
“These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine and position us to submit a Biologics License Application to the U.S. FDA,” said Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. “The high vaccine efficacy observed through up to six months following a second dose and against the variant prevalent in South Africa provides further confidence in our vaccine’s overall effectiveness.”
By 2023, scientific research published at the American Public Health Association showed that the vaccinated were more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.
It has subsequently been admitted in the mainstream media that natural immunity is equally effective as vaccinated immunity at mobilizing resistance to infection. The Lancet on Thursday published a study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that showed that natural immunity is at a minimum equivalent to vaccinated immunity.
“This study provides a comprehensive review of studies that have estimated the protection from past COVID-19 infection by variant and time since infection. The result shows high levels of protection against re-infection for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants for all major outcomes,” the study found. “Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high.”
On Thursday, NBC conceded the study’s findings, which have been reported at Becker News for nearly two years. Nonetheless, Pfizer was exposed by the Twitter Files attempting to censor prominent physicians who were attempting to inform the public about natural immunity, something that arguably could be construed as intent to commit fraud.
Pfizer has a track record of misleading the public. The pharmaceutical company was slammed in November by a British regulator for making “disgracefully misleading” claims about the Covid mRNA shots, also known as “Covid vaccines.”
UK’s pharmaceutical watchdog, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), found that Dr. Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, made “misleading” statements about healthy children purportedly benefiting from the vaccines.
“There is simply no evidence that healthy schoolchildren in the UK are at significant risk from the SARS COV-2 virus and to imply that they are is disgracefully misleading,” watchdog group UsforThem said.
In regards to Pfizer’s claims that the mRNA shots are “safe,” scientific researchers are from Stanford University, UCLA, Louisiana State University, the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Navarre Health Service in Spain, and Bond University in Australia produced a pre-print study in June showed “the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.”
In addition, a pre-print study at the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation in January shows a link between free spike antigens produced by the mRNA Covid shots and a form of heart inflammation known as myocarditis. An Oxford University study has shown that the risk of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, is greater from getting ‘vaccinated’ with the mRNA shots than from contracting the virus itself. The study was published in Nature in December 2021.
Furthermore, there is now video evidence that Pfizer employees had concerns about the mRNA shots being linked to heart inflammation as early as 2021. The company did nothing to warn the public about the potential complication. Instead, it was granted 100% liability protection by the United States government, perhaps indefinitely.
Jackson, a former clinical trial auditor with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management, has made the following claims about the Pfizer contractor Ventavia’s clinical trials:
- [C]linical trial participants were given their second injection outside of the protocol- mandated nineteen to twenty-three day window. On at least four occasions the vaccine concentrate was over-diluted, which directly affects potency and reduces potential side-effects.
- Ventavia failed to report Serious Adverse Events (“SAEs”) to Pfizer and Icon, though that information was available via the clinical trial participants’ “electronic diary” entries. This is perhaps the most egregious violation not only of clinical trial protocol but of public trust.
- Ventavia’s documentation practices were careless, sloppy, inaccurate, and many times falsified. Pfizer had access to this data and equally failed its oversight responsibilities which rightfully draws the presumption that data from other clinical trials is just as bad if not worse.
As reported earlier at Becker News, Brook Jackson was seeking to gain discovery to prove that Pfizer’s clinical trials were indeed, fraudulent.
“It’s all up to the judge now,” Jackson told Becker News, noting that there is now two options. “1. He allows us to move forward with discovery. 2. Dismissed.”
Jackson recently shared a development that Pfizer was compelled to drop half the clinical trial participants for its Lyme disease vaccine due to “violations of Good Clinical Practice (GCP)” at sites run by a third-party operators.
Pfizer has fought “discovery” in its court battle with Brook Jackson every step of the way. If she is successful in her court hearing in March, this charade will come to an end and the American public will get the transparency they deserve over a true matter of life and death. Everyone deserves to know the truth about a pharmaceutical product that is one of the most widely administered on earth.
The case documents for United States of America, ex. rel. Brook Jackson vs. Ventavia Research Group, LLC; Pfizer, Inc.; ICON Plc. can be found here. If possible, Becker News will attempt to cover the hearing live in person and discuss the developments with the litigants.
by Becker News
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.
Discussion about this post