Brook Jackson Fraud Suit News
The Vaccine Wars Part LVIII
A few weeks ago Liam Sturgess and I had the opportunity to talk with Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson and one of her attorneys about her lawsuit against Pfizer, which is potentially the largest lawsuit in history in dollar terms. There are a lot of recent updates on the suit, which you can follow at her Twitter account.
Enough was said on Twitter that I called Brook and we talked for an hour about the case. Understand that of all the topics I write about, I feel least comfortable with the nitty gritty details of legal work. While I did not skip learning about the Constitution in school, and argued Amendment violations routinely in high school and college policy debate, my eyes get weary faster when it comes to reading legal docs. So, forgive me if I make any missteps and feel free to educate me in the comments.
Will The Federal Government Allow This Trial?
That's no small question. If the government has a plan, that plan will dictate how far this case goes. The government could have simply disallowed the case, but it was allowed to proceed.
Now we're at the point at which a judge is deciding whether to accept Pfizer's motion to dismiss the trial.
The judge is deliberating over whether to allow discovery. The implications of this decision could not be larger!
While the government did not stop the lawsuit from moving forward, it had now submitted a statement of interest supporting Pfizer's motion to dismiss the suit.
Perhaps a legal expert understands this course of action better than I, but I'm scratching my head. This took place aside from the government's disagreement with Pfizer over the suggestion that the pharmaceutical giant's actions were a-okay because it acted at the behest of the government. But isn't that at the core of Pfizer's motion to dismiss?
I'm confuzzled.
If the case goes to discovery, that process will be historically costly—perhaps a million dollars of work per month. I made an offer through Brook to consult pro bono. Brook is a member of Operation Uplift, and one of our primary goals is to support one another.
Remember that there has never been a moment in time when authorities had good evidence that the gene therapy products they're calling "vaccines" were safe and effective.
Illegitimacy of Pfizer's Vaccine Trials
A few weeks ago I published an article that felt speculative, but important at the time.
Though 20,000 people have read the article, and I've talked with numerous testing and vaccine experts, nobody is aware of any documentation showing that the PCR tests used in the Pfizer trial were validated as having similar sensitivity and specificity among the vaccinated as with the unvaccinated. Talking to Brook tonight I found out that the PCR tests were all sent to Pfizer's own laboratory at Pearl River to be processed.
Huh.
Warner Mendenhall
I just discovered Warner Mendenhall's Substack today, so I subscribed. Brook says so many good things about him that I'm happy to provide a small financial contribution that way. Mendenhall has subsidized numerous cases during the pandemic, with a pretty good win record.
Addendum
I forgot to mention something important Brook told me. The government is three days behind in releasing Pfizer data!
This matters because Brook is working hard to go through that data for her case!
Hmmmm…
Grr….I typed a really long response and it did not submit! Making it short because I am just spent, but Dr. Nass is absolutely correct. My apologies, Mathew, that I was not more precise in my explanation tonight. Thank you, Dr. Nass!
The nasal swabs at Visit 1 & 2 went to Pfizer’s lab (Pearl River) where Cepheid’s RT-PCR or “other equivalent” NAAT-based test would be used to detect the virus. The protocol does not define what type of NAAT is used there, but it does define local NAAT results considered acceptable if taken during a SOC visit. We can talk more about this soon, maybe Friday. Remember I worked on Cepheid’s trials:)
The Pfizer protocol claimed that most PCR tests would be sent to a central lab, but that some would be done locally using different tests, because when people in the trial got sick, they would need to be tested where they happened to be or live. I do not think Pfizer could control the PCR tests done, for example, at and by local hospitals.
However, if all the PCR tests on healthy people were performed by Pfizer, there is huge room for abuse, of course...and when you are talking about the most lucrative product in world history, if Pfizer had means, motive and opportunity... would it have committed the crime?