I’m going to follow up Dr Healy’s talk and just emphasise the points about data transparency. In the video just now, Dr Healy mentioned that what’s under the hood of Pfizer clinical trials is not science, he said it’s business. I’ve been reviewing industry sponsored clinical trials for over a decade and I tend to agree with Dr Healey. That business and marketing tends to be in the driver’s seat.
In my case it took place over a decade ago, in the midst of another pandemic, Swine Flu. For four years we fought to gain access to the clinical trial data for the drug Tamiflu. Instead of an eight page journal article telling us about a clinical trial, we wanted the one thousand pages of internal company study documents, that we knew were under the water line.
The fact that the Tamiflu data were inaccessible came as a shock, to even the editors of medical journals, who had reasonably assumed that since data is fundamental to the scientific process, surely it must be available? But it wasn’t then for Tamiflu and it isn’t today for Covid vaccines. In fact, if you’re interested in analysing the data, for say Pfizer’s vaccine, you’ll have to wait until May 2025 before you can even request it from the company.
For Moderna, they recently said that the data, quote “may be available with publication of the final study results in 2022”. Since the trials are not officially to end until October 2022, we’re probably talking late 2022. So yes, the trial has still not ended, and yes, doctors and researchers who want to see the clinical trial data will have to wait another year from now before getting access. For J & J, try next July.
If you weren’t aware that the data were inaccessible, I suspect this is because so few health care practitioners and researchers are accustomed to conducting an independent review of the raw data. So there is little outcry when those data are inaccessible. Next slide please:
So while we’re told to “keep following the science”, what we are following is not a scientific process based on open data. We’re following a process in which the data are treated as secret, and in my view there is something very unscientific about that. I feared we would end up in this situation because data secrecy, I’m sorry to say, is the status quo.
In 2015 the Institute of Medicine published a consensus study calling for culture change in which data sharing became the norm, not the exception. But not enough has changed. Last August, before we had results from any of the pivotal Covid vaccine trials, I co-authored a commentary with Dr Healy, saying that clinicians and professional societies need to declare upfront, that they will not endorse treatments or vaccines unless there is complete data transparency.
The point I am trying to make is fairly simple. The data for Covid vaccine trials isn’t available. And it won’t be available for years. Yet we are not just asking, but mandating millions of people take these products. Whatever word you want to use for this situation, without data it’s not science.
Bill Gates who has no qualifications or skills at all in medicine, public health, or environmental matters, predicted the Covid pandemic in 2015. This week he repeated his more recent prediction that a bioterrorism threat looms, and will command immense public resources to address. Also heavily involved in the predictions of a looming climate crisis, he is evolving as a modern day Nostradamus. On matters in which he happens to wield enormous power and gain enormous benefit. All of which require societies to lockdown, obey and acquiesce to various new world order mandates and restrictions.