The secret of liberty lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. (Le secret de la liberté est d’éclairer les hommes, comme celui de la tyrannie est de les retenir dans l’ignorance).
As I wrap up the final chapters for the upcoming book “Lies My Gov’t Told Me: And the Better Future Coming”, I am having to grapple with many of the most difficult issues. And of those, the corruption and lies told concerning the documents submitted by Pfizer and Moderna as well as the subsequent responses by the FDA weigh most heavily on my heart and soul. Just to recap, on May 30, 2021 I had published a piece on Trial Site News concerning the Bioethics issues, titled “Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.” I also composed another article that was published on May. 28, 2021, entitled “Did Pfizer Fail to Perform industry Standard Animal Testing Prior to Initiation of mRNA Clinical Trials?” Of course, both Trial Site News and myself were slandered, defamed and gaslighted by “factcheckers” at the time, but we have all come to learn that these “factcheckers” are really just paid narrative reinforcers.
Here is a brief recap of the items that Media Bias/Factcheck cited as recently as January 23, 2022. Personally, I suggest that Media Bias/Factcheck is clearly a purveyor of disinformation. In my experience, Trial Site News is operated as basically an industry insider-focused publication, designed to address the needs of customers in the clinical contract research and regulatory affairs industry. The firm has no financial interest in promoting anti-vaccine propaganda.
Consistent with that focus, Trial Site News has recently published two comprehensive analyses of the non-clinical data package sections of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine regulatory submissions. Speaking as someone who has been trained and has had decades of experience in non-clinical research, clinical research, and regulatory affairs (including submission and defense of multiple initial new drug – IND- applications to the FDA), as I read these articles I am impressed by the careful wording and step by step analysis provided by the author, who is a very experienced regulatory affairs professional.
These articles are worded using the precise technical language of someone who knows how to review and critique an IND. I have previously read many assessments by scientists, physicians, vaccine specialists, and other interested parties of the non-clinical sections of these IND submissions, and as noted above I prepared one based on the early disclosure by the Japanese regulatory authorities, but none have been as thorough and comprehensive as these two. For those who are not regulatory professionals, the language may seem a bit odd and at times hard to follow, but this is the way we talk to each other, and that is the way these are written. By a professional, for professionals.