NEW DOCUMENT DISCLOSURES Pfizer wanted to keep it a secret for 75 years: Conflicts of interest in clinical trials for COVID. “Independent” specialists received a lot of money, such as Rafila, Cercel and Gheorghiță


ActiveNews facing censorship on social networks and on the internet. Go directly to the site to read us and subscribe to our free newsletter. If you wish to support us, any donation is welcome. God’s help!

“What a tangled web weaves the pharmaceutical industry with its vaccine safety arbiters! Appointed in secret, they meet in secret, their identities are hidden and they are all paid by the companies they must oversee. What could go wrong?! ”, write the lawyers of the ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network – “Informed Consent Action Network”) on the website of the organization that campaigned with public health and medical professionals for transparency to bring to light thousands of Pfizer “vaccine” documents” anti-Covid” that the company and the FDA wanted to be kept secret for 75 years. But the court did not allow them.

ICAN has now discovered conflicts of interest in some of those who conducted clinical trials for Pfizer and who, like Alexandru Rafila, Streinu-Cercel and Valeriu Gheorghiță, had previously received a lot of money from the vaccine company. Now it’s about holding them accountable, as they should be.
The group of lawyers also alerted in 2020 on the financial links with Big Pharma which compromise the Data and Security Monitoring Committees (Data and Security Monitoring Tables – DSMB), in charge of supervising vaccine clinical trials. Now, thanks to ICAN’s tireless efforts to review documents made public by the FDA – in response to the organization’s request Public Health and Health Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) under the Freedom of Information Act – From Pfizer’s biologics file, we can see how far the corruption goes.
The latest batch of documents obtained from the FDA also includes a 61-page document titled BNT162 experimental vaccine programwhich outlines Pfizer’s internal audit mechanism for Covid-19 vaccine studies conducted in 2020 and 2021. Pages 51 and 52 list five initial members of Pfizer’s “External Data Monitoring Board”, its own DSMB, to which two more members were added in February. 2021. (It is interesting that these two members are both physicians specializing in maternal-fetal medicine).

The identity of one of the five original members was revealed, apparently in error, as early as September 2020, in an article published by CBS announcing the doctor’s inclusion. Catherine Edwards, a professor at Vanderbilt University. ICAN shows how, even before joining the DSMB, she was a paid advisor at Pfizer. Additionally, Edwards has received payments, speaking fees, or funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Moderna, Merck, and SmithKline Beecham, while Sanofi has offered him trips to Paris, Dublin, Amsterdam, and Cancun, among other destinations.

In the meantime, we know the identity of the other members of the DSMB. But before we get to who they are, here’s what NIAID Director Anthony Fauci said in a September 2020 interview. Data and security oversight boards, he said, “shouldn’t be due to anyone. Not the president, not the vaccine makers, not the FDA, not me. ».

Obviously, this rule does not apply to Kathryn Edwards. But what about the other members of the expert panel who verify clinical trials of Pfizer vaccines? Here is a short presentation:

Dr Jonathan Zenilman, of Johns Hopkins University, was chair of the committee. From 2014 to 2020, he received $78,279 in consulting fees each year from Pfizer ($28,168 in 2020 alone). Additionally, in 2014-2019, Pfizer paid Zenilman $6,045.09 for meals and travel. Other Big Pharma sponsors include GSK, Merck, Smith & Nephew, Cubist, Siemens Medical Solutions, Cipla, Tetraphase Pharma, The Medicines Company, K2M, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Perrigo and Theravance. Between 2014 and 2020, Dr. Zenilman received a whopping $91,257.69 from these pharmaceutical companies (including Pfizer), not including research funding. Zenilman also received funding from the NIH.
Dr. Robert Belshe, founder of the Center for Vaccine Development at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, has received various consulting and reimbursement fees annually from Pfizer, GSK, Dermira, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck, Emergent Biosolutions, Comsort, Seqirus, Novartis, and Viiv Healthcare from 2014 to 2020, and from AstraZeneca each year from 2014 to 2018. “How much”, you ask? An incredible total of $452,794.26, not including research funding. Pfizer has been particularly generous with consultation fees, speaking fees, and payment for meals, accommodation, and travel. Dr. Belshe disclosed his conflicts of interest in a 2019 article: He has been a consultant and/or lecturer for GSK, Medimmune, Sanofi, Flugen, Novavax, Merck, and Moderna; holds shares/stock options in Flugen; is a member of the scientific council of Flugen; and has served on the data security oversight boards of GSK, MedImmune, Vical and Vaxart.

Dr. Lawrence Stanberry, from Columbia University, has received more than $23,000 from Pfizer in 2020, as well as research funding from NIH, CDC, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He reports on consulting fees from Janssen, GSK and Novartis and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Abivax.

Dr. Robert Phillips Heine, of Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, received $27,450.28 from multiple pharmaceutical companies for travel, lodging, catering, and consulting services between 2014 and 2020. Pfizer conducted the most of those payments in 2020 alone, paying $4,812.50 for consulting fees. Heine has been a consultant and lecturer for GSK and Merck and has received research funding from GSK. Her work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Heather S. Lipkindfrom Yale University School of Medicine, accepted $21,660 in consulting and funding for research and funding from Pfizer in 2019 and 2020.

Steve himselfa statistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, is also a board member of Health Stream Analytics, an organization that develops “new, easy-to-use biometric sensors.”

The people charged with overseeing and approving Covid-19 injections are a warm club of insiders whose pockets continue to yield the loot obtained from Big Pharma, ICAN concludes.

Leave a Comment