Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia Research Group, has alleged widespread fraud in Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine trials, claiming falsified data, protocol violations, and inadequate oversight endangered participants and undermined the trial's integrity. Her 2021 False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit against Pfizer, Ventavia, and ICON PLC, coupled with court filings revealing the U.S. government's awareness of these issues before granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020, raises serious questions about accountability. This blog piece argues that the U.S. government's failure to investigate Jackson's allegations, despite knowledge of potential fraud, constitutes criminal negligence, as it breached a duty of care to the public, knowingly risked harm, and prioritised health policy politics over safety.
Defining Criminal Negligence
Criminal negligence occurs when a party with a duty of care fails to act with reasonable diligence, resulting in foreseeable harm, and demonstrates a reckless disregard for the consequences. In the U.S., this typically requires:
1.Duty of Care: A legal obligation to protect others from harm.
2.Breach of Duty: Failure to meet the standard of care expected.
3.Causation: The breach directly or proximately causes harm.
4.Reckless Disregard: Conscious indifference to a known risk.
5.Harm: Actual or potential injury to individuals or the public.
The case hinges on whether the U.S. government (via the FDA, HHS, and DOJ), Pfizer, and Ventavia met these criteria in their handling of the Pfizer vaccine trials and subsequent EUA.
The Allegations: Brook Jackson's Whistleblower Claims
Jackson, a clinical trial auditor with over 15 years of experience, worked at Ventavia for 18 days in September 2020, overseeing two Texas sites for Pfizer's phase III Covid-19 vaccine trial. Her lawsuit, filed in January 2021 under the FCA, alleges systemic fraud, including:
Falsified Data: Ventavia staff altered records, with one executive noting in August 2020 that three employees needed counselling for "falsifying data" and changing entries without documentation.
Unblinding Participants: Trial participants were unblinded, compromising the double-blind protocol essential for unbiased results.
Inadequate Staffing: Vaccinators lacked proper training or medical certifications, and oversight was minimal.
Improper Vaccine Storage: Vaccines were not stored at required temperatures, potentially reducing efficacy.
Delayed Adverse Event Follow-Up: Ventavia failed to promptly investigate serious adverse events, including life-threatening ones, overwhelming staff with unreported safety issues.
Lack of Informed Consent: Participants were not fully informed of risks, violating ethical standards.
Patient Safety Risks: Participants were left unmonitored post-injection in hallways, and needles were discarded in biohazard bags instead of sharps containers.
Jackson reported these issues to Ventavia management, who took no corrective action. On September 25, 2020, she emailed the FDA, listing a dozen concerns supported by internal documents, photos, and recordings. Within six hours, Ventavia fired her, citing her as "not a good fit." She later spoke anonymously to Pfizer's Dr. Alfaro and discussed her FDA report, but no remedial steps were documented.
Government Knowledge and Inaction
Court filings reveal a critical admission: the FDA was aware of Jackson's allegations before granting the Pfizer vaccine EUA on December 10, 2020. A filing states, "The FDA was aware of the protocol violations allegedly witnessed by relator BEFORE it granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for its vaccine." Despite this, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia's sites, though it inspected nine of the trial's 153 sites. Jackson claims the FDA took no action, stating, "I called them. I filed a report. Did they investigate the allegations I was making? The answer is no."
The government's refusal to intervene in Jackson's FCA lawsuit, unsealed in February 2022, further underscores its stance. In March 2024, the DOJ moved to dismiss the case, arguing that litigation would burden the FDA, HHS, and DOJ and conflict with "health policy." The filing noted that the government had "continued access" to Pfizer's trial data and deemed the vaccine effective, dismissing the need to investigate fraud. In August 2024, Judge Michael Truncale dismissed the case, ruling that Jackson failed to prove her complaints constituted "protected activity" under the FCA and that the government showed "good cause" for dismissal. Jackson plans to appeal, arguing the ruling risks chilling whistleblower protections.
Evidence of Harm: Data Revelations
Jackson's allegations, combined with data released under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FDA, suggest potential harms concealed during the EUA process. The FDA initially sought to withhold nearly 400,000 pages of trial data for 75 years, but a court ordered their release. Analysis by Naomi Wolf, Amy Kelly, and DailyClout volunteers revealed:
Heart Damage: Reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males, with 300 cases linked to Pfizer's vaccine in Australia alone.
Adverse Events: A "massive volume" of unreported or underreported adverse events, overwhelming trial staff.
Biodistribution: Vaccine components accumulated in vital organs, raising safety concerns.
Reproductive Harm: Impacts on fertility and pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriages and fetal abnormalities.
Deaths and Injuries: Severe injuries and deaths linked to the vaccine, with Covid-19 listed as a side effect in some cases.
Transmission Failure: The vaccine did not prevent transmission, undermining claims of public health benefit.
These findings, if accurate, suggest the trial data used for EUA approval was flawed, potentially leading to widespread harm. The government's knowledge of protocol violations and access to this data before EUA approval strengthens the negligence claim.
The Case for Criminal Negligence
1. Duty of Care
The FDA, HHS, and DOJ have a statutory duty to ensure the safety and efficacy of medical products, particularly under EUA, which requires "reasonable belief" that a product "may be effective" and that benefits outweigh risks (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3). The public relies on these agencies to protect against unsafe drugs, especially during a public health emergency. Pfizer and Ventavia, as trial sponsors and contractors, owed a duty to adhere to clinical trial protocols and ethical standards, including informed consent and participant safety, per the Declaration of Helsinki.
2. Breach of Duty
The government breached its duty by failing to investigate Jackson's credible allegations, supported by documents and recordings, despite knowing they could undermine the trial's integrity. The FDA's decision not to inspect Ventavia sites, despite inspecting others, suggests selective oversight. Pfizer and Ventavia breached their duty by allegedly falsifying data, neglecting adverse events, and firing Jackson for reporting issues, actions that violated federal regulations (21 CFR § 312) and trial protocols.
3. Causation
The government's inaction allowed a potentially flawed vaccine to receive EUA, leading to its widespread distribution. Over 418 million Pfizer doses were administered globally by November 2021, with millions in the U.S. funded by taxpayer dollars. If Jackson's claims are true, the trial's compromised data misrepresented the vaccine's safety and efficacy, directly contributing to adverse events like heart damage and reproductive harm. The government's dismissal of the lawsuit, citing "health policy," prioritised narrative over accountability, perpetuating harm.
4. Reckless Disregard
The government's admission that it knew of protocol violations before EUA approval, yet chose not to act, demonstrates reckless disregard. The DOJ's argument that investigating fraud would burden agencies and conflict with health policy suggests a deliberate choice to ignore evidence to maintain the vaccine rollout. Pfizer's continued use of Ventavia for four subsequent trials, despite knowledge of issues, further indicates indifference to risks.
5. Harm
The FOIA-released data and adverse event reports indicate significant harm, including heart conditions, reproductive issues, and deaths. While correlation does not equal causation, the volume of adverse events and trial irregularities suggests a plausible link to the vaccine's rushed authorisation. The government's failure to investigate or recall the vaccine, despite these signals, amplified the risk to millions.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
1. FDA's Confidence in Trial Data
The FDA stated it has "full confidence" in the data supporting Pfizer's EUA and Comirnaty approval, arguing that Ventavia's sites involved only 2% of the trial's 44,000 participants, too small to skew results. Rebuttal: Even a small percentage of fraudulent data can compromise a trial's integrity, especially in a double-blind study where unblinding and falsification bias results. Jackson's evidence of systemic issues at Ventavia, corroborated by two other employees, suggests broader problems. The FDA's failure to inspect Ventavia sites undermines its claim of confidence.
2. Government's Resource Constraints
The DOJ argued that litigation would burden FDA, HHS, and DOJ resources, justifying dismissal. Rebuttal: Resource constraints do not excuse neglecting a duty to investigate fraud, especially for a vaccine distributed to millions. The government's willingness to fund the vaccine's development via Operation Warp Speed (over $10 billion) contrasts with its reluctance to allocate resources for oversight, suggesting misplaced priorities.
3. No Criminal Fraud Found
The FDA ruled no criminal fraud occurred, and Ventavia claimed Jackson's allegations were "unsubstantiated" after investigation. Rebuttal: The FDA's lack of follow-up and Ventavia's self-investigation raise questions about impartiality. Jackson's documented evidence, including executive admissions of data falsification, warrants independent scrutiny. The government's dismissal without investigation appears to protect policy over public safety.
4. Public Health Imperative
The government argued that exposing fraud would undermine public health policy, as the vaccine was deemed effective. Rebuttal: Concealing fraud to maintain public trust erodes confidence in institutions when harms emerge. The vaccine's failure to stop transmission and documented adverse events contradict claims of unassailable efficacy, necessitating transparency over narrative.
Supporting Evidence Beyond Jackson's Claims
Texas AG Lawsuit: In 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer for misrepresenting the vaccine's 95% efficacy, alleging it misled consumers by citing relative risk reduction without disclosing limited durability or transmission data.
FOIA Data: The forced release of Pfizer's trial documents revealed adverse events, including 300 myocarditis cases in Australia and biodistribution concerns, supporting Jackson's claims of underreported harms.
Expert Testimony: Dr. Michael Tomlinson called the Ventavia issues a "reddest of red flags," arguing the FDA's inaction implicates it in approving flawed data.
X Sentiment: Posts on X, including from Jackson herself, reflect public outrage, with users like @VigilantFox citing court filings to demand congressional investigations and a vaccine recall.
Legal and Ethical Implications
Criminal negligence could be pursued under federal statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) or state laws, though prosecuting government agencies is rare due to sovereign immunity. A stronger case exists against Pfizer and Ventavia for corporate negligence, potentially under 21 U.S.C. § 331 (adulterated drug distribution). The FCA lawsuit, while civil, highlights fraud that could trigger criminal probes if substantiated. Ethically, the government's prioritisation of policy over investigation violates public trust, especially given taxpayer funding of Operation Warp Speed.
Jackson's allegations and the government's admissions demand:
Congressional Investigation: A bipartisan probe into FDA oversight and Pfizer's trial conduct.
Independent Audit: A third-party review of all trial data to verify safety and efficacy.
Vaccine Recall: Suspension of Pfizer's vaccine pending investigation, as Jackson urges.
Whistleblower Protections: Strengthened laws to prevent retaliation, given Jackson's firing.
The U.S. government's knowledge of Ventavia's alleged fraud, coupled with its refusal to investigate due to "health policy" concerns, constitutes criminal negligence. By breaching its duty to ensure vaccine safety, ignoring credible evidence, and prioritising narrative over accountability, the government recklessly endangered millions. Pfizer and Ventavia's alleged falsification and neglect further amplify the case. While counterarguments cite resource limits and minor data impact, the scale of potential harm—heart damage, deaths, and reproductive issues—demands scrutiny. Jackson's courage, backed by FOIA data and public outcry, underscores the need for transparency and justice. Without action, trust in public health will continue to erode.
https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/criminal-us-government-admits-it
"The US government just admitted something shocking.
They KNEW Pfizer's COVID "vaccine" trials were a complete sham back in 2020.
But they didn't pursue fraud because exposing it would blow up the very health policy they're still clinging to today.
This revelation comes from the whistleblower case of Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia, the company that ran Pfizer's clinical trials.
In 2021, Jackson filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging that Pfizer, Ventavia, and others committed fraud by falsifying data and violating clinical trial protocols.
And now, the government refuses to investigate further—because doing so would expose that they knowingly pushed a harmful product onto the American people.
We'll show you the court filings with Brook Jackson in this report.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Here's what Brook Jackson witnessed firsthand.
As regional director at Ventavia, the company running Pfizer's vaccine trial sites, Jackson said the entire operation was riddled with serious violations. She saw falsified data, trial participants who were unblinded, staff who were poorly trained, and vaccines that were improperly stored.
Worse, she claimed the company FAILED to follow up on adverse events, including serious, potentially life-threatening ones—which recklessly endangered patients and destroyed the integrity of the entire trial.
"We were so inundated with the number of adverse events that we could not keep up," she said. Pfizer even called asking what the plan was to handle the flood of safety reports.
She said patients weren't even given full informed consent—her "number one concern."
Jackson reported these issues to Ventavia. When nothing changed, she went to the FDA.
Six hours later, she was fired. The reason? "I was not a good fit," she said. "I was not a good fit for reporting fraudulent conduct in a clinical trial."
Jackson worked at Ventavia for just 18 days but says that's all it took to get a grasp of the fraud she witnessed.
The court documents reveal a disturbing admission: the government KNEW about ALL the previously listed issues before granting Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer's COVID shot.
"The FDA was aware of the protocol violations allegedly witnessed by relator BEFORE it granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for its vaccine."
That's the quote from page 12 of the court documents.
The "Relator" they're referring to is Brook Jackson.
If Jackson's allegations were true, it would completely undermine the trial's integrity.
So what did the FDA do with that knowledge?
According to Jackson, nothing.
"I called them. I filed a report. Did they investigate the allegations I was making? The answer is no," she said.
In a second slap in the face to the American people, the government claimed they moved forward with the COVID shots because they had "continued access" to Pfizer's vaccine clinical trial data.
That's the same data the FDA tried to hide for 75 years.
Now that it's been forced into the light, we know exactly what they were trying to cover up—data showing:
• Heart damage in young people
• A massive volume of adverse events
• Biodistribution to vital organs and dangerous accumulation
• Reproductive harm affecting fertility and pregnancy outcomes
• Deaths and severe injuries linked directly to the shot
• COVID-19 listed as a side effect
• Complete failure to stop transmission
• And much, much more.
They had access to it all. And they pushed the shots anyway.
The most disturbing admission of all comes in the third point of the case.
The court filing states:
"The government further explained that discovery and litigation obligations associated with the case would place significant burdens on FDA, HHS, and the Department of Justice and that the government should not be required to bear such burdens on a case 'inconsistent with its health policy.'"
In plain English: the government didn't want to investigate Pfizer, not because the fraud claims lacked merit, but because digging deeper would conflict with its official narrative that the COVID shots are "effective."
That's the health policy they're clinging to.
And they'd rather bury anything that threatens to expose flaws, fraud, or harm from these shots than face the fallout of their own actions.
Jackson emphasized that her lawsuit is about one thing: fraud.
She questioned how exposing fraud could possibly go against public health policy, especially when that policy has never even been clearly defined.
"These were our taxpayer dollars used to fund their experiments," Jackson said, adding, "these [COVID shots] are not safe or effective products. They're contaminated, they're dangerous, and they need to be stopped immediately."
She called for a full recall, congressional investigations, and accountability for the dangerous experiment that's been carried out on the American people.
"Fraud should not be allowed to be a part of a clinical trial. Period."