The Brook Jackson Legal Saga By Chris Knight (Florida)
One of the most important whistleblower cases involving former Pfizer employee, Brook Jackson, who claims that in September 2020, when she was hired to oversee the testing of Pfizer’s vax, criminal fraud occurred, allowing the vaccine to be FDA-approved. The story was broken in the BMJ.com, and the issue is now in court. The trial judge has yet to decide whether he will dismiss the case, or proceed to discovery, which could prove damaging to Pfizer if the allegations made by Jackson are true, and also, will indicate complicity of the Trump and Biden administrations. With such high stakes, my bet, contrary to Trial site News.com, is that the case will be dismissed; the Covid plandemic court cases have shaken the once faith I had in the judicial system.
“The ongoing Brook Jackson legal saga continues, as the clinical trial professional and whistleblower spent another day recently in court. On March 2, 2023, in a motion to dismiss the case, a packed courtroom evidenced growing interest in what could be the most important whistleblower case in recent memory. While the judge went on record that he would not decide whether to dismiss or proceed with discovery on that day, Judge Michael Turncale presided over the Qui Tam action for the U.S. Eastern District Court in Beaumont, Texas. This hearing was based on Pfizer’s successful motion to hold off on any discovery pending the motion to dismiss. Consequently, the stakes are big. A decision to dismiss stops this historic proceeding while a decision to continue opens up what could be damaging discovery for the American pharmaceutical company and its co-defendant vendors including ICON, the international clinical research organization (CRO), and Ventavia, the investigator site network that formerly employed Ms. Jackson. And by extension, the discovery could expose both the Trump and Biden administrations some form of complacency in what emerged, allegedly, as an illicit response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pfizer argues that the normal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related good clinical practice (GcP) standards do not apply based on overarching government contracts negotiated and memorialized as part of the U.S. government’s declared national Public Health Emergency. Pfizer is literally arguing that all the rules, processes, and best practices required of all drug and vaccine producers do not apply as their agreement with the government as part of the emergency supersedes such basic practices established over decades to ensure quality and patient safety. This argument seems a great stretch, given the terms between the U.S. and Pfizer clearly call for adherence to regulatory rules, standards, and norms. How else can a quality drug or vaccine be developed?
In the recent hearing, Judge Turncale questioned Jackson’s attorney about key clauses in the government and Pfizer agreement that clearly delineate the need for adherence to the standard quality and patient safety rules and practices. Fred Barnes, Jackon’s attorney, suggested in his Viva Frei interview recently that this clearly points to a judge that is looking at the facts and the law honestly.”
Comments