The “clinical trials” conducted during the military countermeasure actions surrounding COVID were nothing more than a sham, vaporware, theater. The PREP Act makes all these measures perfectly legal and is why it’s virtually impossible to get any justice for victims of these products.
Unfortunately, most of the public in America and worldwide still doesn’t know any of this, or they don’t want to know. And for sure, the early trial participants (aka Guinea Pigs) and those who performed the “trials” mostly didn’t know either. It’s all fraud on a massive scale, made legal by an unconstitutional law (PREP Act) passed over the Christmas holidays in 2005.
Brook Jackson, Robert Barnes, Mary Talley Bowden and many others show tremendous bravery to this day, bringing as much truth as they can and shining a light on the deceit that runs rampant at every level — from the trial sites, to health systems and NGOs, local and state government, courts, and, of course, the executive branch and DOJ.
Discovery is a must. Deep, dark, discovery that shines a light on the sinister plan perpetrated upon America and the world.
_____
More about the PREP Act from Grok here.
Q: When and how was the PREP Act passed?
A: The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, when President George W. Bush signed it into law as Division C, Section 2 of Public Law 109-148 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006).
Q: Explain key PREP Act provisions
A: Key PREP Act provisions:
- HHS Secretary issues declarations for public health emergencies, providing liability immunity.
- Immunity from lawsuits for losses related to covered countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, devices).
- Covers manufacturers, distributors, administrators, and qualified persons.
- Exception: willful misconduct (proven by clear and convincing evidence in federal court).
- Preempts conflicting state laws.
- Compensation via Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program fund.
First, Brook Jackson was not an "auditor," as she claimed in this conversation, she was just an administrator of 2 or 3 sites out of 153 sites that C4591001 trial had, and it's actually the utmost responsibility of the Principal Investigator of each site to ensure that each human subject's rights, safety are protected, as well as the scientific integrity of the protocol. I've not seen any documentation in the court documents of Brook addressing these sites' issues with Principal Investigator(s).
Second, C4591001 wasn't a complex study at all. Vaccines trials are very simple clinical trials. If Brook considers them "complex," her experience in clinical trials is very limited. Third, Brook Jackson didn't even sign her employment papers in the 18 days of her employment with Ventavia, hence she didn't even have access to the Electronic Data Capture (EDC) platform of this trial (where all trial’s data entered) meaning she couldn't even explain to her managers what were her "findings," since she didn't even know the trials/corresponding system well enough or what such findings were related to.
Because Brook didn't sign her employment papers she also wasn't issued a Ventavia's cellphone. Usually such phones have safety features, encryption, etc., so Brook photographed the confidential patient information on her own private cellphone! This action alone can get a person fired. Moreover, Brook lied to her managers (court records) that she destroyed this info, while on top she was recording an internal teleconference - remember she couldn't have known if patients names/data might be addressed during such a call, she was just recording an internal meeting
When looked at the time stamps in the court files - some printouts in exhibits looked like the info in-between timestamps missing/manipulated
Also, it's so common to label any expected biological samples as "missing" to simply alert the sites that they're not entered in the system, but were already received. No "big deal" or anything wrong with it
Texas is known for its notoriously low quality of medicine, and clinical research sites in TX are no exception.
If Brook’s "findings" were significant enough, the FDA would had inspected Ventavia, if for nothing else but simply pro forma, given a report from the site.
Pfizer deserves to be hanged, but I don't think there is enough in this case to hang it.
Thank y'all for the update and mostly for your courage! Greatly appreciated!
The “clinical trials” conducted during the military countermeasure actions surrounding COVID were nothing more than a sham, vaporware, theater. The PREP Act makes all these measures perfectly legal and is why it’s virtually impossible to get any justice for victims of these products.
Unfortunately, most of the public in America and worldwide still doesn’t know any of this, or they don’t want to know. And for sure, the early trial participants (aka Guinea Pigs) and those who performed the “trials” mostly didn’t know either. It’s all fraud on a massive scale, made legal by an unconstitutional law (PREP Act) passed over the Christmas holidays in 2005.
Brook Jackson, Robert Barnes, Mary Talley Bowden and many others show tremendous bravery to this day, bringing as much truth as they can and shining a light on the deceit that runs rampant at every level — from the trial sites, to health systems and NGOs, local and state government, courts, and, of course, the executive branch and DOJ.
Discovery is a must. Deep, dark, discovery that shines a light on the sinister plan perpetrated upon America and the world.
_____
More about the PREP Act from Grok here.
Q: When and how was the PREP Act passed?
A: The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, when President George W. Bush signed it into law as Division C, Section 2 of Public Law 109-148 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006).
Q: Explain key PREP Act provisions
A: Key PREP Act provisions:
- HHS Secretary issues declarations for public health emergencies, providing liability immunity.
- Immunity from lawsuits for losses related to covered countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, devices).
- Covers manufacturers, distributors, administrators, and qualified persons.
- Exception: willful misconduct (proven by clear and convincing evidence in federal court).
- Preempts conflicting state laws.
- Compensation via Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program fund.
_____
Talley Ho!
What I personally noticed reading the court documents.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62995004/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-brooks-jackson-v-ventavia-research-group/
First, Brook Jackson was not an "auditor," as she claimed in this conversation, she was just an administrator of 2 or 3 sites out of 153 sites that C4591001 trial had, and it's actually the utmost responsibility of the Principal Investigator of each site to ensure that each human subject's rights, safety are protected, as well as the scientific integrity of the protocol. I've not seen any documentation in the court documents of Brook addressing these sites' issues with Principal Investigator(s).
Second, C4591001 wasn't a complex study at all. Vaccines trials are very simple clinical trials. If Brook considers them "complex," her experience in clinical trials is very limited. Third, Brook Jackson didn't even sign her employment papers in the 18 days of her employment with Ventavia, hence she didn't even have access to the Electronic Data Capture (EDC) platform of this trial (where all trial’s data entered) meaning she couldn't even explain to her managers what were her "findings," since she didn't even know the trials/corresponding system well enough or what such findings were related to.
Because Brook didn't sign her employment papers she also wasn't issued a Ventavia's cellphone. Usually such phones have safety features, encryption, etc., so Brook photographed the confidential patient information on her own private cellphone! This action alone can get a person fired. Moreover, Brook lied to her managers (court records) that she destroyed this info, while on top she was recording an internal teleconference - remember she couldn't have known if patients names/data might be addressed during such a call, she was just recording an internal meeting
When looked at the time stamps in the court files - some printouts in exhibits looked like the info in-between timestamps missing/manipulated
Also, it's so common to label any expected biological samples as "missing" to simply alert the sites that they're not entered in the system, but were already received. No "big deal" or anything wrong with it
Texas is known for its notoriously low quality of medicine, and clinical research sites in TX are no exception.
If Brook’s "findings" were significant enough, the FDA would had inspected Ventavia, if for nothing else but simply pro forma, given a report from the site.
Pfizer deserves to be hanged, but I don't think there is enough in this case to hang it.