Just in the days in which the imminent arrival of the so-called "anti-Covid pills" produced by Pfizer, the giant of the pharmaceutical sector that most of all has enriched itself with the explosion of the Covid emergency was announced, here is yet another burst scandal involving the American company, once again accused of lack of transparency in disclosing the data relating to the tests carried out to the world.
Guido Rasi, former executive director of the European Medicines Agency (Ema) announced on: "Probably the pills to cure Covid will be available from January. The EMA has given the green light, Pfizer's drug seems very useful compared to molnupiravir. The green light and availability in early January will probably come in days ”. In short, everything is ready for a new, rich business. In which a multinational company promptly dived which, however, in recent days has ended up in the crosshairs again.
To call into question Pfizer is Trial Site News, "digital media that deals 100% with the transparency of clinical trials and clinical research around the world" and which has published an investigation signed by Sonia Elijah which reveals the existence of "Highly confidential Pfizer documents, synonymous with the extreme lack of transparency endorsed by the behavior of government agencies over the past 20 months." Dossiers on which the world of science has been questioning for some time, those relating to the vaccine trials of the American company. And for which, at the end of August, an official access request was presented.
Over 30 scientists and academics have in fact submitted to the FDA (the American drug agency) an application to view the documents that led to the green light for the Pfizer vaccine, which then ended up on markets all over the world with huge profits for the company that produces it. With difficulty, the group of experts is managing to make the official pages of those dossiers known, although they are made known very slowly, and then make them public (https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/). Above all, the 38-page report entitled "Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received until February 28, 2021", based on data from various countries around the world is discussed.
Among the data that emerged after examining the documents, according to Trial Site News, the partial information provided to the world and 1,228 deaths registered within three months of taking the vaccine, never disclosed, would be worrying. All this confirms the lack of transparency, during a trial in which the gender of the participants was not even communicated. Furthermore, for all types of adverse events encountered, it would have emerged that women are on average 3 times more affected than men, in particular as regards allergic reactions.
Similarly, Trial Site News highlights how data on risks during pregnancy and breastfeeding were excluded from the original analysis submitted to the FDA to obtain the green light. Numbers that "underline 413 adverse cases, 84 of which are classified as serious" and which appear to be in sharp contrast to Pfizer's optimistic analysis, which had stated that it had not found any dangers for new mothers and future mothers.
On the other hand European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is thinking about the possibility of compulsory vaccines for all inhabitants of the European Union. Vaccine or death, here is the theme.
Raising doubts on this topic and the one relating to the salvation that political decision-makers bring, is equivalent to deserting, to questioning the very safety of the community and of individuals. In the Covid society, doubts and conflicts of interest, even if only potential, between medical scientists, politicians and pharmaceutical companies have disappeared.
It has become normal for the European Commission to keep contracts for anti-Covid vaccines hidden. The contracts are largely obscured and authorization to disclose the information contained is denied.
It is normal that part of the scientific community does not have access to the raw data of the trials that led to the creation of the vaccines and does not have access to post-adverse reaction autopsies, when they are performed. It is normal to downplay the Pfizergate scandal, published by the British Medical Journal, which reveals falsifications in medical trials. It is forbidden to say that the most powerful investment funds and banks, which think about making money and not saving people, are inside the main pharmaceutical companies involved in mass Covid vaccination. And the Italians cannot even dare to argue that the only information our doctors receive about drugs is from pharmaceutical companies. Nor can we refer to the influence exercised by the pharmaceutical industry, with the promotion of its products, on the behavior of individual doctors, institutions and politicians. There is no conflict of interest between politics, doctors and pharmaceutical industries: it cannot exist. There is only the vaccine or death dichotomy, when the ISS also maintains that those affected by Sars-Cov-2 face a very low possible mortality of 2%. That of MERS-CoV was 34%, that of SARS-CoV-1 was 9.6%, Ebola of 50% and smallpox of 30%.
During Covid, it became taboo to question the independence and sanctity of those involved. It will definitely be normal. Like the fact that the pharmaceutical industries, through their payments, support 86% of the budget of the EMA Agency, the European Union agency that evaluates drugs. Wasn't it better that the EMA, for greater independence, was financed entirely from the EU budget and that the EU in turn collected taxes from the pharmaceutical industry? Politicians think not. The EMA Executive Director is appointed by the EMA Board of Directors, on a proposal from the European Commission. Therefore, politics weighs on the supervisory bodies, in this intertwining between medical scientists and political decision makers. We have no doubts that the heads of the regulatory agencies are all independent, above the parties, unwilling to be influenced by politics, career and money. But we ask ourselves: is it still legitimate to ask the question of how long these leaders would remain in their place if they expressed opinions diametrically opposed to those of the political decision-makers who appointed them !? But that's not possible in the age of vaccine or death.
One of the main players in this whole game is the European Commission and its president, the German Ursula von der Leyen.
A few months ago von der Leyen was at the center of a request from the office of the Union Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, to clarify the exchange of messages between her and Pfizer's chief executive, Albert Bourla. We are talking about the text messages sent and received by the two during the negotiations on the supply to the EU of 1.8 billion doses of the anti-Covid vaccine. The issue was raised by the New York Times which asked several questions, never addressed by the media in Italy. The text messages would fall within the concept of "document" provided for by regulation 1049/2001, which establishes that in the event of non-public dissemination, applicants can refer to the ombudsman. The European Commission received a request for access to the message exchange from a Dutch jurist, Martijn Nouwen, but refused, claiming they had all been deleted. Each month, the European Commission deletes several thousand emails and text messages and WhatsApp messages are not archived.
For this the case led to a complaint to the ombudsman who opened the investigation. But we are in a deja vu in the face of a precedent, already in 2019 von der Leyen was criticized for a "cleaned" cell phone, considered key evidence in a procurement scandal at the German Defense Ministry that she led and which was very generous with loans to private companies. The cell phone no longer contained the exchanges of messages between the people involved.
In these days the chapter concerning von Der Leyen's husband has exploded online in this intertwining between medical-scientific and political interests.
In fact, Heiko von Der Leyen appears to be, as medical director, in the management team of Orgenesis, an American biotechnology company specializing in cell and gene therapies, the very same technologies involved in the mRna vaccines used by the most famous pharmaceutical companies against Covid. It may be a coincidence but they are the same ones on which his wife Ursula quickly closed the emergency contracts with Pfizer, at the center of numerous doubts and diatribes.
In May 2020, Orgenesis announced a COVID-19 vaccine platform with great emphasis to CNN Business: "The Company has been working aggressively in recent months to reuse its cellular vaccine platform targeting solid tumors for use against viral diseases ".
Obviously in an era of "vaccine or death" it is not from doubts that solutions come. Nor is salvation expected from questions. The words of the well-known French entrepreneur Francois Ducrocq on twitter summarize, in some way, the questions that European readers are asking: "Ursula van der Leyen, our main buyer of vaccines in hundreds of millions of units, has a husband, Heiko, who runs Orgenesis, a biotechnology company specializing in gene therapy. So it is clearer ”.
In light of all these intertwining and overlapping, there can be no B plans beyond vaccination,
There can be nothing beyond vaccination.
And then how can we not believe in the salvific intent of the unstoppable vaccination of von der Leyen who leads the crusade of the European Union?