On Friday @arad_nir, Israeli journalist, has exposed that according to Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer's Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer (Viral Vaccines), Israel acts as "a sort of a laboratory", and that its MoH is exclusively using the Pfizer product.
@arad_nir pointed out that this was in direct conflict with the statement of Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis (Israel's director of Public Health Services in the MoH) given only 3 weeks ago, when he asked her why does the Israeli citizens are trapped by the Pfizer contract.
The reply of Dr. Alroy-Preis to @arad_nir was that "so first of all, no one has imprisoned us, and there was no phase [where] there was any exclusivity agreement with Pfizer."
Alroy-Preis didn't lie, but she didn't tell the truth... let's break down her statements.
First: "no one has imprisoned us" is a statement of a member of the Ministry of Health, who was "willing to carry out the foregoing pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in (Pfizer manufacturing & supply agreement)", which fully indemnified Pfizer.
Israeli citizens had no ability to choose what vaccine they could get. They were given one choice - Pfizer.
If you want to know how bad that choice was, read this section from my 1st #COptiGate thread.
Second point: there might not have been an exclusivity AGREEMENT, but the "Real-World Epidemiological Evidence Collaboration Agreement" Israel as signed with Pfizer created a de-facto exclusivity. This was the only way this research would have worked.
The Pfizer-Israel project objective was "To measure and analyze epidemiological data arising from the Product (Pfizer vaccine) rollout, to determine whether herd immunity is achieved after reaching a certain percentage of vaccination coverage in Israel."
Look at exhibit A & B. If you had multiple vaccines, Pfizer would not be able to gain anything from the data. The data shared with them would have had to include the other product.
This agreement does not mention any other product nor how it will impact the project.
The Freedom of Information Movement @shakoof asked the MoH to provide the data which was delivered to Pfizer. Here is the post from @Nadav_Eyal on the topic.
In the same file, it is stated that "3. Pfizer were not provided access to databases, but FILES were sent as was attached to section 2 of this response"
The letter does not mention what other files were sent to Pfizer, other than mentioning one more file.
The letter inform some XLS files passed anonymization. 1) According to the contract Pfizer was supposed to receive ONLY de-identified data. 2) Could not in the XLS with such anonymization.
Did Pfizer receive Identifiable Health Information?
Finally - NONE of the files provided by the MoH gives any indication to any other vaccine usage, which should have been given to Pfizer as without it they would not be able to measure the impact of other products.
Sharon Alroy-Preis was one of the co-authors of a Lancet paper about the Impact & effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine. It would be impossible to measure the impact of Pfizer vaccines on cases, hospitalisations, and deaths without exclusivity. gov.il/BlobFolder/new…
As mentioned (#PFIZERLEAK - THE ISRAELI CONNECTION), Sharon Alroy-Preis has conflicts of interests: she works for the MoH, who signed the indemnification contact with Pfizer, and SHE was assigned (in research contract) to decide what data is published.
She is the head of the division which plans, operates and leads the Ministry of Health and the entire health system in the fight against the epidemic, including vaccinations and epidemiological investigations.
Pfizer didn't need an exclusivity agreement, They had Sharon Alroy-Preis who had the power to push an exclusive usage of Pfizer, had the personal motivation to do so, and held a huge power in vetting information relating to the performance of the Pfizer vaccine.
Sharon Alroy-Preis did not lie in her statements to @arad_nir, but she was hiding the truth about the DE-FACTO exclusivity, and I believe it is reasonable to assume she was involved in it, and perhaps chosen for her role because of it.
@arad_nir summarized it best: it is... appropriate that we (the citizens) will be informed that we are part of a medical experiment, ask for our permission and our consent to participate in an experiment of a commercial company which uses the results for their US (FDA approval).
REMEMBER: we are talking about a product that has SEVERE design issues with risks identified in 2011.
Please read about codon optimization and S-2P.
People's health should never be seen as a collateral damage, and NO ONE should be allowed to risk kids!
"Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."
To understand what member states got dragged into these horrible agreements, let's go back to the agreement between the commission & member states on producing vaccines, annexed to EC decision C(2020) 4192 from the 18th of June 2020.
In a typical European Commission style, the APAs were "approved for signature on behalf and in the name of the participating Member States by a separate individual Commission decision."
Or in other words - the member states are rubber stamps to the EC decisions.
2) Adapt the "regulatory framework ...making use of existing regulatory flexibility to accelerate the development, authorisation and availability of vaccines while maintaining the standards for vaccine quality, safety and efficacy." #PfizerLeak
Highlights from my writing on the topic of codon optimization, for those who have never heard about it before (or for those who wish to share it with others).
Before you bombard experts (e.g. @RWMaloneMD) with endless requests to comment on the validity of what I write, please read this thread, then go to the previous threads (links below), and see the references I use.
There is MUCH MORE INFORMATION in my previous threads!
1) Inconsequential (“silent”) mutations are known as synonymous mutation. 2) Synonymous mutations contribute to cellular processes which are determining protein structure and function. 3) Synonymous mutations influence protein folding.
@plecbe@wimremes More:
According to the article, only 64% of the adult population in Brussels are FULLY vaccinated. Since there is almost same # of vaccinated and non-vaccinated on ventilators in Israel, this statistic just doesn't add up.
Most people fail to realize that in many times SICK PEOPLE under Immunosuppressive Therapies ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THE COVID19 VACCINE due to their condition.
Here is BC's Centre for Disease Control document on the topic:
REVERSE ENGINEERING: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE GENETIC CODE WITHIN THE PFIZER VACCINE?
(thread)
What does the mRNA code in the Pfizer vaccine tell us about the genetic design decisions, its safety, possible impact on our health, and the "quality" of FDA BLA approval?
This is going to be A LONG thread; I will review the code after the introduction. As usual (with my posts), please use the "show replies" option multiple times to unveil the whole thread.
The FDA's approval to Pfizer's Biological License Application (BLA) stated "...our review of information submitted in your BLA application...did not raise concerns or controversial issues that would have benefited from an advisory committee discussion."
Now that the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine via BLA, THE FDA IS REQUIRED TO REVOKE THE EUA OF MODERNA & JANSSEN, because NOW THERE IS an "adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of their product."
Clarifications: 1) Current Pfizer products are EAU products, hence THEY ARE NOT LICENSED and cannot be mandated. 2) The FDA must clarify WHY it does not revoke Moderna & Janssen. If it claims it does so because of availability, it opens up an interesting path of litigation.
3) If you own Pfizer shares you can go to court, ask for disclosure from the FDA and Pfizer regarding the decision, as part of a claim that their decision damages you financially, since Pfizer claimed they can manufacture 1.3 billion dosages in 2021.