Lubomyr Prytulak     Firt posted 07Dec2020     Last edited 18Dec2020

Dr. Bonnie Henry reacts to Pfizer coronavirus vaccine developments    09Nov2020    From:

Dr Bonnie Henry's reaction to the Pfizer announcement of 90% effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine boils down to this: that she was "excited" (a word she used twice) by the "fantastic" (another word she used twice) results, and that if the results continue to be that exciting-and-fantastic, BC will start mass vaccination just as soon as the vaccine can be manufactured and distributed.

However, she left something out.  Something very important.  In fact, she broke a rule obligating her to say that important thing that she omitted.  Let's start by examining that rule as it applies in two situations: medical research and medical treatment.


On the question of what researchers are required to tell their experimental subjects, the World Health Organization's (WHO) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Handbook dictates that a medical researcher is particularly obligated to provide subjects with any information which might alter the subject's willingness to participate in the given research.  Three repetitions of this rule have been emphasised below in bold red.



Within GCP, the principle of “respect for persons” is most directly implemented through the process of informed consent.  Included here is the provision that the subject (or subject’s legally authorized representative) will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the subject’s willingness to continue participation in the trial[p. 22]

All information must be communicated in a comprehensive and understandable manner to the trial subject.  This includes, but is not limited to:  [...]  that the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the subject’s willingness to continue participation in the trial[pp. 62-63]

“Sponsors and investigators have a duty to ... renew the informed consent of each subject if there are significant changes in the conditions or procedures of the research or if new information becomes available that could affect the willingness of subjects to continue to participate  [p. 77]

And the same rule is confirmed below by another highly-authoritative source, the ICH-GCP — that the information that is obligatory to convey to the experimental subject is information which has some possibility of changing that subject's willingness to participate.  Helpful in the ICH-GCP statements is that whereas WHO above may be mistakenly taken to refer only to new information that arrives over the course of the research, ICH-GCP below explicitly includes participation-threatening information that is available prior to participant commitment as well.

International Council For Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice logo
International Council for Harmonization
Good Clinical Practice

1.28  Informed Consent

A process by which a subject voluntarily confirms his or her willingness to participate in a particular trial, after having been informed of all aspects of the trial that are relevant to the subject's decision to participate.  [...]

4.8.2  The written informed consent form and any other written information to be provided to subjects should be revised whenever important new information becomes available that may be relevant to the subject’s consent.  [...]  The subject or the subject’s legally acceptable representative should be informed in a timely manner if new information becomes available that may be relevant to the subject’s willingness to continue participation in the trial.  [...]

4.8.7  Before informed consent may be obtained, the investigator, or a person designated by the investigator, should provide the subject or the subject's legally acceptable representative ample time and opportunity to inquire about details of the trial and to decide whether or not to participate in the trial.  All questions about the trial should be answered to the satisfaction of the subject or the subject's legally acceptable representative.  [...]

4.8.10  Both the informed consent discussion and the written informed consent form and any other written information to be provided to subjects should include explanations of the following:  [...]

(p) That the subject or the subject's legally acceptable representative will be informed in a timely manner if information becomes available that may be relevant to the subject's willingness to continue participation in the trial.


And it should come as no surprise to discover that the obligation of doctors to their patients is exactly the same — to disclose all information which might alter a patient's willingness to submit to a treatment:

Informed Consent: What Must a Physician Disclose to a Patient?

Bryan Murray

In other words, the court held that [...] to establish true informed consent, a physician is now required to disclose all risks that might affect a patient’s treatment decisions.


In the Dr Bonnie Henry 09Nov2020 press conference, she is addressed as a doctor, and she gains authority and credibility by being so recognized, and most importantly — she dispenses medical advice.

Urging a particular vaccination is medical advice whether delivered to one person or to a million.  Whereas some medical advice varies from patient to patient, and therefore needs to be delivered individually, other medical advice may be needed by almost everybody, and thus can be delivered to many, even to everybody, simultaneously.  It seems to be logically untenable, and morally repugnant, that a physician can be obligated to warn individual subjects or patients of a dangerous side effect of a drug, but is permitted to conceal that danger when recommending the same drug to an audience.

In lauding the Pfizer vaccine, Dr Bonnie Henry unmistakably struggles to win the people's consent to a medical treatment, but if she is at the same time withholding information that may affect the people's readiness to submit to that vaccination, then she falls short of winning informed consent, and can take pride in having won only misinformed consent.

Of utmost importance is to avoid giving a research subject or a medical patient or a vaccine recipient cause for lamenting "If you had told me this beforehand, I would never have submitted to the treatment."  Such patients have been betrayed, and are voicing their aggrievement at their betrayal, and might be expected also to eventually hire a lawyer and seek damages in court.

But now that we have a criterion for what disclosures need to be given to a subject or a patient or a vaccinatee, let us return to the press conference of 09Nov2020 — what, if any, possibly-participation-altering information has been left undisclosed in recommending the Pfizer vaccine to the public?


The table below shows Pfizer being clobbered by six humongous penalties for its various pharmaceutical misdeeds, consisting mostly of selling drugs whose effects Pfizer did not know, or knew to be useless, or knew to be harmful.  Or even selling drugs which Pfizer knew to be lethal.

2004 $430M Pfizer to Pay $430M to Resolve Criminal & Civil Liability For Off-Label Promotion
2009 $2.3B Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in History
2010 $142M Pfizer to pay $142M for drug fraud.  Sales of drug total $300M annually in Canada
2012  $55M Pfizer to Pay $55M for Illegally Promoting Protonix for Off-Label Use
2016 $784M Pfizer to Pay $784.6M to Resolve Lawsuit Alleging Wyeth Underpaid Drug Rebates
2020 $839M Pfizer to Pay Protonix Settlements Totaling $839M

Documentation of the above list can be found in the PFIZER RAP SHEET.

And the above half-dozen list barely scratches the surface of Pfizer malpractice and criminality, and could easily be expanded tenfold, and even a hundredfold, as for example by expanding the search beyond Federal prosecutions to include State prosecutions, and expanding beyond that to personal law suits whether conducted solo or collectively, and expanding still further to all 180 countries in which Pfizer operates.  How numerous the individual lawsuits can be is suggested by the following excerpts from the 2020 section of the PFIZER RAP SHEET.

Nearly 10,000 women filed Prempro breast cancer lawsuits against Pfizer.  By 2012, Pfizer settled most of the claims for more than $1 billion.

About 3,000 people filed Chantix lawsuits against Pfizer.  They claimed Chantix caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders.  In 2013, the company set aside about $288 million to resolve these cases.

More than 6,000 testosterone therapy lawsuits were pending in May 2018.  The lawsuits say testosterone products caused strokes, blood clots and heart attacks.

It is particularly such scattered civil law suits as these (each small compared to the gigantic federal suits we have been noticing higher above) which by their large number, and by their most often getting settled out-of-court with nondisclosure clauses attached, make us regret that much Pfizer harm is hidden, and which makes its full extent both unmeasurable and immeasurable.

A first look at the depth and breadth of Pfizer wrongdoing may shock the many who are unacquainted with the subject of Big Pharma lawlessness, and may leave them hoping that it will somehow be revealed to be not as bad as it seems, or that if it had been this bad in the past, it may be getting better in the present, but neither of which upon deeper probing proves to be the case.


Radio and television and newspapers teem with people credited with expertise, but who when talking about COVID-19, or about any disease, make no mention of the massive Big Pharma wrongdoing that is indicated above, and so that hearing their milquetoast pap day after day, year after year, the public becomes predisposed to brush aside information of Big Pharma wrongdoing as a "conspiracy theory", relying on the syllogism that such information is absent from the mainstream, and anything not mainstream is false.

What is proposed here, though, is that the mass-media, mainstream experts in fact tend to have only weak credentials, when they have any at all, and that listening instead to people with the strongest credentials reveals that the cynical view expressed above of an outlaw Big Pharma is mainstream among those who are best informed.

And so what follows in this section is further confirmation of a lawless Big Pharma as described by three experts bearing rarely-equalled credentials, namely Peter Gøtzsche, Richard Smith, and Drummond Rennie.

Peter Gøtzsche

What this super trio is most likely to say of the PFIZER RAP SHEET is that it's exactly what they've been seeing and studying throughout their professional careers, and which perception can be summed up as in the excerpts below, starting with Peter Gøtzsche MD, professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the Univeristy of Copenhagen; and co-founder of The Cochrane Collaboration; and creator of the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Here, then, is an excerpt from Peter Gøtzsche's summary of the characteristics of Big Pharma.  As our interest lies chiefly with Pfizer, it is to be particularly noted that the italicized paragraph below is credited to "a previous global vice president of marketing for Pfizer" (and within which excerpt Pfizer has been emphasized in bold).

Peter C Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare
Radcliffe Publishing, London, 2013, pp. 38-39.

The centrepiece of the US Organized Crime Control Act from 1970 is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  Racketeering is the act of engaging in a certain type of offence more than once.  The list of offences that constitute racketeering include extortion, fraud, federal drug offences, bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, obstruction of law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, and political corruption.  Big pharma does so much of this all the time that there can be no doubt that its business model fulfils the criteria for organised crime.

A previous global vice president of marketing for Pfizer turned whistle-blower when the company wouldn’t listen to his complaints about illegal marketing holds a similar view:

It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob.  The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry.  The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry.  The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry ...  The difference is, all these people in the drug industry look upon themselves — well, I’d say 99 percent, anyway — look upon themselves as law-abiding citizens, not as citizens who would ever rob a bank ...  However, when they get together as a group and manage these corporations, something seems to happen ... to otherwise good citizens when they are part of a corporation.  It’s almost like when you have war atrocities; people do things they don’t think they’re capable of.  When you’re in a group, people can do things they otherwise wouldn’t, because the group can validate what you’re doing as okay.

When a crime has led to the deaths of thousands of people, we should see it as a crime against humanity.  Whether they are killed by arms or by pills should make no difference for our perception of the misdeed.  But, until recently, there was a remarkable complacency with even lethal crimes.  This may be about to change, at least in the United States.  In 2010, the Justice Department charged a former vice president for GlaxoSmithKline.  [...]

In the United States, big pharma beat all other industries in terms of crimes.  They have more than three times as many serious or moderately serious law violations as other companies, and this record holds also after adjustment for company size.  Big pharma also has a worse record than other companies for international bribery and corruption and for criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacture of drugs.  In a 5-year period, from 1966 to 1971, the FDA recalled 1935 drug products, 806 because of contamination or adulteration, 752 because of sub- or superpotency and 377 because of label mix-ups.

Bribery is routine and involves large amounts of money.  Almost every type of person who can affect the interests of the industry has been bribed: doctors, hospital administrators, cabinet ministers, health inspectors, customs officers, tax assessors, drug registration officials, factory inspectors, pricing officials and political parties.  In Latin America, posts as ministers of health are avidly sought, as these ministers are almost invariably rich with wealth coming from the drug industry.

In the beginning of this chapter, I asked the question whether we are seeing a lone bad apple now and then, or whether pretty much the whole basket is rotten.  What we are seeing is organised crime in an industry that is completely rotten.

Richard Smith

And before leaving Peter Gøtzsche's book, we notice that it has two Forwards, the first written by Richard Smith MD, who worked at the British Medical Journal for 25 years, serving as editor in chief of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group from 1991 to 2004.  An honorary professor at Imperial College London and the University of Warwick, and chair of the board of Patients Know Best.  Relevant at the moment is the following excerpt from his Forward whose condemnation of Big Pharma is as harsh as Peter Gøtzsche's, and ending his statement by likening Big Pharma to "the mob":

Most of Peter's book is devoted to building up the case that the drug industry has systematically corrupted science to play up the benefits and play down the harms of their drugs.  As an epidemiologist with very high numerical literacy and a passion for detail, so that he is a world leader in critiquing clinical studies, Peter is here on very solid ground.  He joins many others, including former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, in showing this corruption.  He shows too how the industry has bought doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient organisations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians.  These are the methods of the mob.

Richard Smith MD in Peter C Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, Radcliffe Publishing, London, 2013, p. viii.


Author of the second Forward is Drummond Rennie MD, Adj. Professor of Medicine, The P.R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.  MD, Cambridge University.  Deputy editor first of the New England Journal of Medicine, when at Harvard, and then JAMA when at UCSF.  With JAMA in 1986 originated and directed all 7 of the Congresses on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication to encourage research into the process of the publication of science.  Co-directed the San Francisco Cochrane Center.  Received the 2009 AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom & Responsibility.

So what makes this book new and worth your attention?

The answer is simple: the unique scientific abilities, research, integrity, truthfulness, and courage of the author.  Gøtzsche's experience is unequaled.  He has worked in sales for drug companies either as a drug company representative pitching pills to doctors or as a product manager.  He is a physician and a medical researcher and has built a high reputation as head of The Nordic Cochrane Centre.  So when he speaks about bias, he bases his opinions on careful research over decades, published in peer-reviewed journals.  He deeply understands the statistics of bias and the techniques of analyzing reports of clinical trials.  He has been in the forefront of the development of systematic and rigorous review and meta-analysis of reports of clinical trials, to winnow out, using strict criteria, the true effectiveness of drugs and tests.  He is annoyingly persistent, but he is always driven by the evidence.  [...]

My last reason for trusting Gøtzsche's account has to do with my own job as an editor at a very large medical clinic journal.  Editors are the first to be able to examine the written report as it comes from a research institution.  Editors or their reviewers detect problems of bias in the papers submitted to their journals, and it is to editors that complaints and allegations are directed.

I have written repeated, and often indignant, editorials revealing unethical behavior by commercially-supported researchers and their sponsors.  At least three editors whom I also know well, Drs. Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell (The New England Journal of Medicine) and Richard Smith (British Medical Journal) have written books in which they have expressed dismay at the magnitude of the problem.  Other editors such as Fiona Godlee of the British Medical Journal have written eloquently on the corrupting influence of money and the way it biases the treatment of patients and increases costs.  [...]

While Gøtzsche may seem to talk in hyperbole, my own depressing experiences and that of medical editors and researchers I know personally tell me he's right.  [...]

If Gøtzsche is angry at the behavior of academia and industry, he has a right to be.  What's needed is more of Gøtzsche's evidence-based outrage.

Drummond Rennie MD, in Peter C Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, Radcliffe Publishing, London, 2013, p. x-xi.

In short, PFIZER is not the only bad apple in the barrel, and the PFIZER RAP SHEET would surprise no one who has taken the trouble to peek beneath the surface of the misinformation and disinformation that the mainstream media incessantly bombards us with.


As it has been shown above first that Pfizer is rotten to the core, and second that all of Big Pharma is rotten to the core as well, it should now be possible to compose, by way of partial confirmation of such profound cynicism, a MODERNA RAP SHEET comparable to the PFIZER RAP SHEET.

However, it can't be done!  Moderna has never done anything wrong, at least nothing that would come to the attention of the FDA, or that causes patients to sue.  So maybe the entire Big Pharma barrel isn't rotten after all?

No such luck!  Moderna hasn't done anything wrong in the pharmaceutical trade because it hasn't done anything at all in the pharmaceutical trade, right or wrong.  Hasn't a single pharmaceutical on the market, because the FDA has never approved any of its submissions.  One might guess that Moderna gets all its money from investors, and from governments both supporting Moderna research and reserving purchase of vaccines whose efficacy and safety Moderna promises to deliver.  Merchandizing Moderna is Moderna's stock in trade.  Merchandizing pharmaceuticals has yet to be added to its inventory of activities.

But despite Moderna reduced access to some of the means of wrongdoing, it nevertheless is able to stuff execs' pockets with cash using the PUMP AND DUMP scam.

But first, we'll take a look at Pfizer pulling the same PUMP AND DUMP scam, from which we might be able to infer that even while touting the wonders of the vaccine they're developing, Pfizer execs have reason to fear that it's not going to work.


When exciting-and-fantastic vaccines are developed, they are expected to sell well and rake in piles of cash, which will elevate the stock price of their corporations, and so that investors can be expected to not only hold on to the stocks they already own, but also to buy more.  However, this is not what happened, either in the case of the exciting-and-fantastic Pfizer vaccine, or Moderna's.


PFIZER CEO Albert Bourla

To any PUMP-AND-DUMP exec's defense that his stock sale had been scheduled ages ago (SCHEDULED DUMP), and thus was not part of a PUMP-AND-DUMP scam, Financial Post below points out that the exec's PUMP AND DUMP ploy can be implemented by leaking the exciting-and-fantastic news just prior to a scheduled stock sale (SCHEDULED DUMP), which leakage amounts to scheduling the exciting-and-fantastic news (thus rendering it indistinguishable from a SCHEDULED PUMP).

When the execs who stuffed millions of dollars into their pockets are the ones who juxtaposed PUMP just ahead of DUMP, it must be recognized that both PUMP and DUMP have been scheduled, and it doesn't matter how long ago, or if one was scheduled longer ago than the other.

Why the Pfizer CEO selling 62% of his stock the same day as the vaccine announcement looks bad

Selling the bulk of your stake never looks good, but especially when public confidence in your company is a matter of life or death

   Financial Times
   Tom Braithwaite

When Pfizer Inc. and German partner BioNTech announced on Monday that their COVID-19 vaccine was highly effective, global stocks soared.  Shares in Pfizer rose 7 per cent and chief executive Albert Bourla sold US$5.6 million of stock at a whisker from the company’s all-time high.

But even if the timing of your trade is locked in, what happens if you control the timing of the announcement?

The intent behind the plans [which set dates when insider stocks will be sold] is to allow executives to conduct regular, modest sales of company stock over an extended period of time.  It is not, as Bourla has done, to dump 62 per cent of your entire holdings within three months of putting the plan in place.

Bourla is not the only pharma CEO to be cashing out this year.  At Moderna Inc., which also has a promising vaccine candidate, chief executive Stéphane Bancel has sold a whopping US$49.8 million of shares in the company, according to data from S&P Global.  [...]

When Sandy Weill was building financial services group Travelers Companies Inc. he made his top executives swear a “blood oath” that they would not sell any stock in the company until they left or retired.  That extreme position certainly ensures that management is aligned with outside investors.  To sell most of your holdings, absent a divorce or other unavoidable event, looks bad.  That is especially true when public confidence in your company is a matter of life or death.

Pfizer's CEO sold $5.6 million in stock the day he announced promising vaccine news

Pfizer CEO Sold $5.6M in Stock on Day of Vaccine Announcement


MODERNA CEO Stéphane Bancel


Phase II Trials Starting "Any Day" So Why Is Moderna’s Stock Down 40%?

Peter Cohan     27May2020

If that apparent good news is in the market, why have its shares lost 40% of their value since peaking at $87 on May 18 when Moderna announced limited Phase I results?  Does this make Moderna stock a buy?

If Moderna’s vaccine can safely produce enough antibodies to halt the spread of the Covid-19 causing virus, its shares are a bargain.
A coronavirus vaccine rooted in a government partnership is fueling financial rewards for company executives.

Moderna’s top leaders sold company stock as the share value skyrocketed

By Christopher Rowland and Carolyn Y. Johnson     02Jul2020<

As shares of biotech firm Moderna soared in May to record highs on news that its novel coronavirus vaccine showed promise in a clinical trial, the nation’s senior securities regulator was asked on CNBC about news reports that top executives had been selling their stock in the company.

Jay Clayton, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, responded that companies should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  “Why would you want to even raise the question that you were doing something that was inappropriate?” he said.  [...]

In total, seven corporate executives and board members as well as a venture capital fund run by Moderna’s board chairman collectively sold almost $101 million worth of stock following Clayton’s comments.  [...]

Insiders selling included Moderna Chief Executive Officer Stéphane Bancel, Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim and Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks.  [...]

Moderna’s stock rose by 200 percent from January to June — as company news releases and news reports described early progress in its quest for a vaccine.  In May, it was up as high as 300 percent after the release of the results of the clinical trial.  The company made a public offering of stock on May 18 at the very peak of its share value.

Nell Minow, an expert in corporate governance and vice chair at ValueEdge Advisors, said it is inadvisable for Moderna’s corporate insiders to be selling stock, particularly in the midst of major news about its leading product.

“It can send the market a signal that is opposite to all of the positive things that they are trying to communicate,” she said.  “By definition, it is very concerning.

“Whether it is preprogrammed or not, it’s hard to believe that anybody who thought the company was going to be tremendously successful with this vaccine would be selling,” Minow said.  [bold red font added]

Moderna unveiled encouraging coronavirus vaccine results.  Then top execs dumped nearly $30 million of stock

Moderna CEO and other execs made millions on vaccine announcement

To return to the question of what further information the BC PHO is obligated to disclose to the public — is it possible that news of Pfizer and Moderna PUMP AND DUMP scams might affect the public's willingness to submit to Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations?  Rather!  How could anyone accept vaccination when the top execs who manufactured the vaccine act as if they disbelieve that their vaccine will really work?

And therefore does not medical ethics oblige the BC PHO who recommends Pfizer and Moderna vaccination to simultaneously disclose to the public the existence of their respective PUMP AND DUMP scams?


An effective and safe COVID-19 vaccine is way more difficult to create than the public imagines, as is explained by Professor Arthur Caplan, Director of Medical Ethics at New York University:

60 Minutes Australia: Scientist says a coronavirus vaccine in just 12 months is 'fake news'   

60 Minutes Australia video

Transcript from 01:01 to 02:41 of the 60 Minutes Australia video:

AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN:  Our best and brightest medical minds and researchers are working tirelessly.

HOST:  But are we being sold a lie?  After all, COVID-19 is the seventh coronavirus to strike mankind, and we've never found a vaccine for any of them.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We are very confidant we're gonna have a vaccine at the end of the year.

Professor Arthur Caplan

PROFESSOR CAPLAN:  To quote a famous president, It's fake news!  The shortest time anybody's ever found a vaccine against any disease that I'm familiar with is about 7 years.  The average time is 20.  To be talking about a magic bullet coming in months is ... it borders on the absurd.  [...]

I'm not saying don't spend the money, I'm not saying don't do the research, but we can't plan public policy on a miracle.

HOST:  Right now, there are about a hundred medical teams around the world, including Australia, chasing that miracle — the holy grail of a COVID vaccine.  Surely, one of them will find it?

PROFESSOR CAPLAN:  Look, viruses are very clever.  We have no AIDS vaccine right now, we've been looking for that for more than 25 years.  There's no vaccine for hepatitis C.  Even the flu vaccine we've got, which we've been working on for decades, is about 40% effective ... in a good year.

There's no guarantee we will find something to beat this virus.  But the idea that just because a lot of teams work on this, it's going to give somebody the breakthrough — that doesn't follow.

The Moderna Mystery, then, is why Dr Bonnie Henry broadcasts to British Columbians that the Moderna vaccine-under-development offers hope (ranking second out of a hundred, with only Pfizer ahead), and when
  • to attain that hope would constitute a miracle, and when

  • Moderna had never produced any usable vaccine in its history, and when

  • Moderna relies on mRNA technology which has never produced any FDA-approved vaccine in its history, and when

  • Moderna execs have demonstrated their lack of faith in their vaccine-under-development by staging a PUMP AND DUMP robbery.

And, adding to the mystery is how it came to pass that a company as unpromising as "Moderna has $483 million in government commitments to develop its vaccine candidate", which quote is from the Washington Post article immediately below.

The Moderna mystery, then, might be clarified by one Dr Moncef Slaoui, currently President Trump's "Vaccine Tsar" who at least might be expected to exert influence over the President's vaccine thinking, but who more likely runs the whole vaccine show in the US, and who when coming to the White House had to first step down from the board of directors of Moderna.

And who while deciding who gets research money is himself heavily invested in pharma stocks, which in a law-abiding society would be regarded as presenting a career-ending conflict of interest.

Chief of White House’s ‘Operation Warp Speed’ vaccine effort can keep investing in pharma firms, under IG ruling

Advocacy groups and Democratic senators have denounced Moncef Slaoui’s financial ties as a conflict of interest

Moncef Slaoui, a former GlaxoSmithKline executive, speaks with President Trump during a vaccine development event in the Rose Garden at the White House on May 15. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By Christopher Rowland    14Jul2020

The co-director of President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed can maintain extensive investments in the drug industry and avoid ethics disclosures while he continues to make decisions about government contracts for promising coronavirus vaccines under a decision this week by the Health and Human Services inspector general.

Monday’s ruling by the Office of Inspector General came in response to a complaint filed by the advocacy groups Public Citizen and Lower Drug Prices Now. The groups said the Trump administration has carved out an improper exception to federal conflict of interest rules for Moncef Slaoui, a venture capital executive and former high-ranking official at drug giant GlaxoSmithKline.

Slaoui took the helm of Operation Warp Speed in mid-May as what the administration has described as a volunteer contractor, accepting just $1 for his services. That designation has allowed him to avoid the requirement for government employees to disclose financial interests and divest in holdings that conflict with their responsibilities.  [...]

When he accepted the role as Trump’s top vaccines official, Slaoui stepped down from the board of directors at Moderna, one of the leading contenders to develop a vaccine. The administration also said he was selling his stock holdings in Moderna. Moderna has $483 million in government commitments to develop its vaccine candidate.  [...]

Slaoui’s lack of financial disclosure has attracted negative attention from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Last month, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, blasting Slaoui’s employment status and calling it “a blatant attempt to skirt federal ethics law.”


The following LIFESITE article reports the sudden death of priest Fr. John Fields after receiving a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in the course of a clinical trial, and where it is affirmed that he did not have COVID-19.

As he was 70 years old, one might speculate that it was not the Moderna vaccine that killed him, but old age.  However, there is reason to believe that he was a particularly hale 70-year-old, firstly because, being a priest, he might be expected to be free of life-shortening habits such as smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, and keeping irregular hours.  An even stronger reason for thinking that Fr. Fields may have enjoyed above-average health is that Moderna “allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study.”  His death being unexpected and premature, then, raises the suspicion that it may have been the two doses of the Moderna vaccine that killed him.

Another cause of concern raised by LIFESITE is the admission quoted immediately above that Moderna "allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study".  If all volunteers were exceptionally healthy, then the results of the study could not be extrapolated to the entire population which would be ultimately getting the vaccine, because their health on average would be only average.  And the results would be even less applicable to people whose health was below average.  In the language of scientific method, it would be said that the study lacked "external validity", meaning that its results could not be generalized to the population that one wanted to generalize to.

And once we learn that the Moderna researchers were not admitting into their clinical trial everyone at hand, but only the exceptionally healthy, it follows that the longevity of the subjects getting the Moderna vaccine would be raised, which would make the Moderna vaccine look good, but also that the longevity of the control group subjects would be raised as well, making the Moderna group look unexceptional.  Allowing our thoughts to wander along this path, one may fear that the Moderna researchers were seeking particularly healthy subjects for only their Moderna group, while allowing less healthy subjects into its control group, which is the simplest way to fabricate Moderna-favorable results.

And one last new matter is the LIFESITE claim that the mRNA methodology intends to alter every cell in the vaccinatee's body, which sounds dangerous, and which the public hopes that experts will soon clarify.  As it looks like this every-cell-in-your-body-altered proposition may well be one which affects vaccination-participation rate, then it is obligatory to disclose everything known on the subject, right now being later than is optimal, but better late than never.

Priest who participated in trial for unethical Moderna vaccine dies suddenly


By Michael

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, December 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Ukranian Greek-Catholic priest, who was previously a volunteer in the testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, has died suddenly in his home.  It is still unclear if the 70-year-old’s death is related to the vaccine.

Fr. John Fields was the Communications and Religious Education Director for the Archeparchy of Philadelphia, which is part of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.  Announcing his death, the Archeparchy stated that Fr. Fields “has passed away in his home.  The cause of death is yet to be determined.”  Fr. Fields turned 70 this year.

Just recently, Fields had participated in the trials of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, after receiving an email from the University of Pennsylvania at the end of August, asking if he wished to “participate in the third and final phase” of the vaccine trial.

The Dialog reports that Fr. Fields had been very eager to participate in the trials, answering “yes” to the email: “It would be a great opportunity to fight this pesky virus that suddenly appeared and wreaked havoc throughout the world, bringing death and disrupting every aspect of our lives.”

He had been approached specifically due to his age, since he was in the age bracket the study team “deemed the higher risk group for the COVID-19 virus.”  The first injection he received was on August 31, with the second on October 1.

Despite being asked to record any symptoms following the vaccination, Fr. Fields previously confirmed to The Dialog that he experienced none.

“I think of the researchers, who in only several months, as part of Operation Warp Speed, collectively used their knowledge and wisdom from Almighty God to achieve this medical milestone,” he had said.  “I may be able [to] contribute in some small way to the development of an effective vaccine that would help stop this worldwide COVID-19 pandemic and the fear.”

Father Michael Hutsko, of Sts. Peter and Paul church in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania, suggested that Fr. Fields had suffered “an apparent heart attack,” and the vicar general of the Archeparchy confirmed that Fr. Fields “did not have COVID-19.”

Archbishop Boris Gudziak of the Archeparchy said, “In our last conversation before Thanksgiving Father John was in good spirits and seemingly improving in his health.”

Moderna vaccine safety and ethical concerns

Vaccine manufacturer Moderna has promoted the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, but pro-life organization Children of God for Life reported in May that there was a “20% ‘serious’ injury rate” amongst those who had received a high dosage of the vaccine in early trials.  The participants in the vaccine trial at that stage were also very selectively chosen, as Moderna “allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study.”

Members of an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have been warning the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that the public should be warned about the potential serious side effects from vaccines.  [...]

Big Pharma's House of Cards is Collapsing

But if the above negative evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination progress is true, then there are surely enough highly-qualified people who would have by now gathered together and shouted it out to the world.  As no such shout can be heard, then the horrific picture painted above can't be true.

To this, there is a good answer.  Yes, there are many such highly-qualified people, and they have not been sitting idle.  They have been hard at work blocking the COVID-19 fraud, but the mainstream media is strangled by Big Pharma, and the opposition's message is only beginning to trickle through to the public — and here comes yet another piece of information that is able to alter people's willingness to submit to a Pfizer vaccine, and so which Dr Bonnie Henry is going to have to begin disclosing — that two immunology experts, Drs Wolfgang Wodarg and Michael Yeadon, are petitioning the European Medicines Agency to stop all COVID-19 testing until the methodology is upgraded to remove dangerous flaws.

It is of the highest relevance that one of the two petitioners asking that the Pfizer clinical trial be halted is Dr. Michael Yeadon because he had once served as a vice president and chief scientist for Pfizer!  As many potential vaccinatees would be stopped in their tracks upon learning that a former vice president and chief scientist for Pfizer was petitioning against the Pfizer vaccine, it follows that this is information that medical ethics demands be placed before all potential vaccinatees.

The Wodarg/Yeadon petition appears in a gold frame immediately following the LIFESITE article immediately below which might be read as a summary.

Doctors petition EU to stop all COVID vaccine studies due to grave risks

The renowned doctors mention infertility in women, increased vulnerability to the coronavirus, as well as allergic or even fatal reactions as risks associated with COVID vaccine studies.

By Patrick Delaney     04Dec2020

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, December 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Due to significant safety concerns, a former vice president and chief scientist for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, has joined a prominent German physician and past head of a local public health department in petitioning for the immediate suspension of all COVID-19 vaccine studies in Europe.

Dr. Michael Yeadon, who held Pfizer’s most senior research position in the field of allergy and respiratory medicines prior to his departure in 2011, and epidemiologist and pulmonary specialist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg have filed their petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which is responsible for approving drugs in the European Union at large.

According to a report from 2020News, the two doctors “demand that the studies — for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers — should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.”

The petitioners point out that PCR tests, which have been broadly used around the world as a means of detecting the COVID-19 virus, are known by experts to lack accuracy, and are thus unsuitable for a serious study.  As an alternative, they demand that something called “Sanger sequencing” must be used.

Without such a change, “neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary [level of] certainty,” which is why, they affirm, due to this factor alone, “testing the vaccine on humans is unethical.”

They also demand that “risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses,” must be excluded by means of animal experiments prior to tests being performed on human beings.  Such dangers include:

  1. Infertility in Women:  These vaccinations are expected to produce anti-bodies to attack “spike proteins” such as COVID-19.  However, “spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans.”  Therefore, the petitioners demand that “[it] must be absolutely ruled out” that a coronavirus vaccine would not trigger an immune reaction against this protein, “as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.”

  2. Increased vulnerability to the virus:  “The formation of so-called ‘non-neutralizing antibodies’ can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, ‘wild’ virus after vaccination.”  Past experiments on cats using this technology revealed that all of them “that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.”

  3. Allergic or even fatal reactions:  “The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance — this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.”

  4. Unacceptable risk of long-term effects:  “The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects.” As a hastily developed vaccine for the swine flu caused many cases of narcolepsy over the last decade, the doctors point out that if the vaccine is used without sufficient study, millions of healthy people will be exposed to unacceptable risks.

The Wodarg/Yeadon petition to the European Medicines Agency runs as follows (its Appendix A contains a parallel petition to the FDA):

Wodarg Yeadon EMA Petition ... by Zerohedge Janitor


The Dr Bonnie Henry press conference of 09Nov2020 violates the obligation to disclose information that might alter the public's willingness to submit to a Pfizer or a Moderna COVID-19 vaccination.

Unfortunately, it may be expected that all who have participated in stirring up today's COVID-19 hysteria will recoil with horror at the thought of making any disclosure whatever, let alone the full disclosure urged above, because even the disclosure of as little as the PFIZER RAP SHEET by itself has a good chance of turning the public against the Pfizer vaccine, and yet the high probability of exciting this aversion is what makes such disclosure obligatory under the medical code of ethics.  To recoil from disclosing treatment-contraindicators is to abandon the ethics of medicine and adopt the morals of a Pfizer drug salesman.

If Dr Henry chooses to remain silent on this issue, then she would be obligated to inform the public that she considers herself to be playing the role of a civil servant who is not bound by the medical-ethics requirement of disclosure, and so that if the public wants to be warned of contraindications for the medical treatments she recommends, it should not look to her.