The BMJ, a very reputable medical journal, makes the following point:
Pfizer’s pivotal ***** ******* trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).
The lack of access to data is consistent across ******* manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT04470427).
As of 31 December 2021, AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials.19 But actually obtaining data could be slow going. As its website explains, “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.”20
Underlying data for *****-19 therapeutics are similarly hard to find. Published reports of Regeneron’s phase III trial of its monoclonal antibody therapy REGEN-COV flatly state that participant level data will not be made available to others.21 Should the drug be approved (and not just emergency authorised), sharing “will be considered.” For remdesivir, the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the trial, created a new portal to share data (https://accessclinicaldata.niaid.nih.gov/), but the dataset on offer is limited. An accompanying document explains: “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.”
This issue is not new.
The "last time around" the same crap happened with Tamiflu which we now consider to be basically worthless. It sure made people a hell of a lot of money, however -- both the drug manufacturers and all the medical people who charged for the drug, the mark-up on the drug, and of course to administer it.
This is not limited to pandemics. Vioxx is a screaming example and cost 60,000 dead people before we put a stop to it -- five years later. If that happens this time, and it might, it will be millions of dead people in the US alone.
Never mind that the statistical trickery with the so-called "*******s" (which are nothing of the sort) is out in the open. Calling someone who gets *****-19 after being jabbed, but before the period of full protection kicks in "unvaccinated" deliberately falsely stuffs any and all increases in susceptibility to infection during that period into the "unjabbed" bucket and thus is active fraud in that it is an attempt to convince you do something that is knowingly dangerous under false pretenses.
Data honesty is important and not hard to achieve. In fact we can make it law and shove it down manufacturer's throats, especially during declared emergencies where people are being coerced either directly or via a climate of intentionally-inculcated fear.
During such a time the most important element is whether said fear and the claimed act to assuage it is justified. You damned well should be forced to prove it, and thus this is what we should demand.
Specifically, when it comes to active outbreaks, whether pandemics or not, we should demand:
- Anyone who uses an intervention counts as having done so at the moment they do. If the "authorities" recommend or even force an intervention that makes your situation personally worse before it gets better it is an act of fraud for which they should be hung out to dry and held criminally and civilly to account if concealed. That's exactly what we've been doing for the last year and it must stop now with everything being restated to reflect this.
In short if you take a jab you are "vaccinated" as of the date of the first jab. If a recommendation is made to do that during an active outbreak then the risk of it increasing your susceptibility during that outbreak is properly charged to the decision to take it or not. - We must insist that de-identified but with all co-morbid factors maintained data is reported for all events with each mitigation recommended or enforced counted accurately. This one's simple; you produce a daily data dump for everyone who seeks treatment or tests positive for "X" and accurately account for whatever known co-morbid factors exist and any mitigations they took irrespective of when.
So for *****-19 the correct data set is as follows for each person who "tests positive" and again for each person admitted to a hospital:
Demographics: Age, sex, national origin.
Comorbid factors: BMI, diabetes, coronary heart disease, chronic lung disease, cancer, high blood pressure (and maybe a couple more.)
Jabbed: If ever jabbed the answer is "yes", no matter whether five minutes earlier or six months earlier. You cannot count someone as "partially vaccinated" if they get infected before their second shot was due. The definitions are: 1. Unvaccinated: No shots 2. Vaccinated: One or more shots on schedule prior to infection and 3. Partially vaccinated: The second shot was not taken deliberately prior to infection when it should have been taken.
Treatment protocols: Where known, all drugs used are listed (e.g. Run-death-is-near in a hospital, etc.) For an ambulatory case this will likely be incomplete and unable to be verified but for hospitalization every thing they did is documented so it must all be listed. No exceptions.
Worst state: (1) Home care (recovered), (2) Admitted (recovered), (3) ICU (recovered), (4) Ventilated (recovered) and (5) DEAD.
This must be released daily once an outcome has been determined. Remove the identifying information and the rest is published.
Had we done this we would have rapidly identified things that people claimed to have done at home and which appeared to work. Maybe they do and maybe they don't since there's no audit on home treatments that people say they used.
But all of the things that did and didn't work in hospitals, along with the comorbid factors to evaluate them, would have been laid on the table within weeks and, I'll bet, a huge percentage of those who died would not have, never mind the institutions (like one here) that has managed to slaughter over 90% of ***** admissions from June to the end of 2021 without a peep being issued by anyone, like our Governor or Mayor, for example, about what is obviously a ridiculously bad record and which should have long ago drawn a crap-ton of scrutiny on their protocol(s) being used or not.
This deliberate misinformation by our government and health care actors was not a mistake.
It was a highly profitable enterprise and thus can reasonably be called murder-for-hire.