Pfizer used Israel as
“the world’s first laboratory” to study its Covid vaccine’s efficacy, NOT
promote safety (Connecting the Dots: Pfizer,
Israel, Obama, The Soros Funded Brookings Institution, Aspen Institute &
The International Rescue Committee, All Networking)
BizNews
28th October 2022
by Nadya Swart
https://www.biznews.com/health/2022/10/28/pfizer-israel
While Israel is a relatively small country, it was dubbed
“the world’s laboratory” by none other than Pfizer’s CEO Albert Burla. Israel‘s
Covid-19 vaccination programme,
officially named “Give a Shoulder”, began on 19 December 2020, and was praised
for its speed, having given 20% of the Israeli population the first dose of the
vaccines’ two dose regimen in the span of three weeks. This article reveals
that, in exchange for the privilege to be the first country in the world to
roll out the vaccine among its population, Israel entered into two agreements
with Pfizer over COVID-19 vaccines that turned Israel
into an agent of a commercial pharmaceutical company — and forced the state to
give up its sovereign responsibility to protect the well-being of its citizens.
In the framework of one of these agreements “The Real World Epidemiological
Evidence Collaboration Agreement”, the research outcome
measures, defined by Pfizer, did not include safety. In effect, the contract
between Pfizer and Israel’s Ministry of Health enabled the pharmaceutical giant
to conduct a real-world experimental study of its Covid-19 mRNA vaccine
efficacy using the Israeli population as test subjects. – Nadya Swart
How the
Israeli Ministry of Health Became an Agent for Pfizer
By Guy Shinar*
A bit of
background: at the end of 2020, Israel was
facing an empty trough. None of the aggressive measures taken by Israel against
COVID – lockdowns, social distancing, school closures and attempts to cut off
the chain of infection by means of quarantine – had succeeded in preventing the
spread of the virus.
In addition, the
then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced the threat of the disbanding of
his government and the replacement of his leadership in the elections. All this
was overshadowed by indictments pending against him. Netanyahu decided to bet
on Pfizer’s vaccine as the strategy that could potentially allow him to solve
the COVID problem, with the added benefit of substantial political gain.
In this way, in
exchange for the privilege to be the first country in the world to roll out the
vaccine among its population, Israel entered into two agreements with Pfizer: a
production and supply agreement that was not made public at all; and “The Real World Epidemiological
Evidence Collaboration Agreement,” which is discussed in this
article.
“The Real World
Epidemiological Evidence Collaboration Agreement” was signed on January 6th,
2021. Its declared purpose was to collect and analyse epidemiological data
arising from the vaccination of the population in Israel, and to determine if
herd immunity would be achieved as a result of the vaccine. In the framework of
this agreement, research outcome measures were defined.
Outcome measures
did not include safety. All outcome measures explicitly defined in the
agreement were efficacy outcomes, such as the number of those infected with
COVID, number of hospitalisations with COVID, and death from COVID, or indices
on the speed of the vaccine rollout in Israel, such as the number of vaccinated
by age and demographic characteristics.
None of the
outcome measures that were explicitly agreed upon in advance were safety
outcomes, such as overall mortality, hospitalisations from any cause or the
known side effects of vaccines, whatever they may be.
What
constitutes a “catastrophe?” –
The agreement included a declaration, according to which the two parties
recognise that the success of the cooperation depends on the rate and extent of
the vaccine rollout to the population in Israel. Israel’s Ministry of Health
promised that the distribution, deployment, and provision of the vaccine to the
population would be carried out in a timely manner.
This was agreed
without any condition regarding vaccine safety, with the exception of a
“catastrophe” which would lead to the vaccine being taken off the shelves. It
isn’t clear from the agreement what constitutes a catastrophe, which of the
parties gets to declare a catastrophe and what steps should be taken in order
to identify a catastrophe before or at the beginning of its occurrence.
Pfizer will
provide experts and expertise –
The agreement defines that Pfizer will collaborate with Israel’s Ministry of
Health by providing, at Pfizer’s own discretion, experts in the fields of:
infectious and respiratory diseases, vaccines, epidemiology, mathematical
modelling, data analysis and public health. The parties agreed to provide each
other with documentation and computer programs for data analysis.
In other words,
the agreement defines that Pfizer’s role not only amounts to providing vaccines
and setting research goals, but also provision of experts in data analysis, and
data analytics computer programs. As such, Israel’s Ministry of Health gave up
its scientific independence, not only in determining the research goals, but
also in performing the research.
Control over
publications – One
clause in the agreement discusses publications as a result of the collaborative
research. The parties agreed to publish together in the scientific and medical
literature, while marking the contribution of each of them. However – and this
is a big “however” – in case the other party decides to publish separately,
each of the parties maintains the right to prevent the other party from
mentioning the first party in the publication.
In other words,
Pfizer has the power under the agreement to omit any reference to its
contribution to the research, so its involvement in setting research goals,
methods or even in writing the research results is not mentioned at all.
Thus, a study may
be portrayed as independent of Pfizer, although it is not necessarily so. In
addition, if either party wishes to publish without the other party, then it is
the duty of the party wishing to publish to submit the publication for review
and feedback from the other party (the time allotted for the review is redacted
and we do not know how long it is). This is how the party who is not interested
in the publication can potentially delay it – which may render the publication
meaningless in a dynamic event such as COVID. In other words, the agreement
gives Pfizer considerable control over the content and timing of the
publications.
Pfizer’s right
to use the data collected –
Under the agreement, the Ministry of Health gives Pfizer the right to use data
collected as part of the collaboration for purposes such as research and
development, submission to regulatory authorities, scientific publication, and
other business objectives.
Redacted
sections – It should be
noted that entire sections in the publicly available version of the agreement
are redacted, as are whole sentences or key numbers from other sections.
Section 6, which deals with indemnifications and limitations of damages and
liability, is redacted in its entirety.
The same goes for
Section 10.10 dealing with dispute resolution. In Section 3, which details the
contributions of each party to the collaboration and is therefore the heart of
the agreement, there is a redacted sentence at a particularly troubling place:
right after the mutual acknowledgment by Pfizer and the Ministry of Health that
“the viability and success of the Project is dependent on the rate and scope of
vaccinations in Israel,” and right before the Ministry of Health’s disturbing
contractual commitment to assure what appears to be an all-out “rapid
distribution, deployment and use” of the vaccine.
The name and
title of Pfizer’s signatory to the agreement, as well as the name of their
representative for dispute resolution, are also redacted. Why this is necessary
is puzzling.
Why is the
agreement with Pfizer so significant? Because it turns the state from a
sovereign entity into an agent of a commercial pharmaceutical company seeking
to operate in its territory. A role of the state is to protect the wellbeing of
its citizens and residents.
As a result, it
imposes safety, efficacy and quality requirements on pharmaceutical companies,
and operates a regulatory system with legal authority to determine whether or
not the drugs meet these requirements. The role of the pharmaceutical company
is to test the efficacy and safety and ensure the quality, to the full
satisfaction of the state.
The one who
markets and distributes the drugs is of course the drug company and not the
state. This is not the case under the agreement with Pfizer, in which the
Ministry of Health takes on some of the roles of the supervised, and in fact
puts itself in a conflict of interest with its own role as the supervisor: it
follows from the agreement that the Ministry of Health turns into: (1) the
vaccine distributor and marketer for the population; (2) a research and data
collection contractor on outcomes aimed at evaluating the efficacy of vaccines
alone, and not their safety; (3) the “publisher” of scientific articles –
effectively requiring Pfizer’s approval – under the academic guise of its own
health authorities (such as the major health funds or the Ministry of Health
itself).
The Ministry of
Health research about the vaccine, co-authored by senior officials and published
in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM),
the Lancet and Circulation, is predominantly about
the efficacy research outcomes defined in the collaboration agreement. No less than 10 articles tested only efficacy outcomes, exactly as explicitly defined in
the agreement. Two articles (and
a letter to the editor)
examined a single safety outcome – myocarditis – and concluded that it appears
infrequently and is usually mild.
None of the
articles report on the two main outcomes required for a reliable assessment of
the vaccine’s benefit to risk ratio: overall mortality for any reason and
hospitalisations for any reason, as compared in a statistically valid manner
between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
Why did Ministry
of Health officials enter into this agreement? Why didn’t they maintain their
role as regulators, and why did they volunteer to serve as Pfizer’s marketing,
distribution, research and publication branch? It appears highly likely that
pressure from Netanyahu and his bureau contributed to the matter. But the
personal angle, and the potential conflict of interest it may entail, cannot be
ignored: the academic prestige conferred by numerous articles published
in NEJM and the Lancet can be life-changing
in terms of academic prestige and promotion.
So what exactly
do we have here? The research collaboration agreement between the Ministry of
Health and Pfizer reflects a preconceived notion according to which the vaccine
is safe to use and all that remains to be researched are various indicators
that are supposed to demonstrate its efficacy.
This is despite
the fact that at the time of entering into the agreement the safety assessment
of the Pfizer vaccine was based on a randomised trial that
was too small and short to allow sufficient characterisation of key safety
aspects, such as overall mortality from any cause.
Abandoning this
preconceived notion became almost impossible once the agreement was signed, due
to a confluence, not only between Netanyahu’s political agenda and Pfizer’s
commercial interests, but also potentially between them and the academic
prestige of senior Ministry of Health officials. Israel would have done well if
it had refrained from entering into the agreement.
In this way,
Israel could have rolled out its vaccination program in a measured way among
the at-risk populations, without having to do so hastily as a result of a
contractual obligation, and without forcing it in practice through the Green
Pass on the entire population, and on children, in particular.
Connecting the Dots:
Sidley Austin
LLP is the lobby firm for Israel.
Barack Obama was
an intern at Sidley Austin LLP and the president of the Barack
Obama administration.
Michelle Obama was
a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP.
Cameron F. Kerry is
a senior counsel at Sidley Austin LLP, John F. Kerry’s brother
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank).
John F. Kerry is Cameron
F. Kerry’s brother, married to Teresa Heinz Kerry and the
climate czar for the Joe Biden Administration.
Teresa Heinz
Kerry is married to John F. Kerry and an honorary trustee
at the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
George Soros was
the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Mark B. McClellan was
a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (think tank) and a
commissioner for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Constance J.
Horner was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution (think
tank) and is a director at Pfizer Inc. (Vaccine
Manufacturer).
Suzanne Nora
Johnson is a trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank)
and a director at Pfizer Inc. (Vaccine Manufacturer).
Amy W. Schulman is
a trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank) and the EVP
& general counsel for Pfizer Inc. (Vaccine Manufacturer).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
George Soros was
the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Saban
Center for Middle East Policy is a policy center at the Brookings
Institution (think tank).
Haim Saban is a
benefactor for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a trustee
at the Brookings Institution (think tank), a friend of Shimon
Peres and a board member for the Friends of the Israel Defense
Forces.
Shimon Peres is
a friend of Haim Saban and the president of Israel.
Benjamin
Netanyahu is the prime minister for Israel.
Thomas R.
Pickering was a U.S. ambassador for Israel, a lifetime
trustee at the Aspen Institute (think tank) and is a distinguished
fellow for the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Brookings
Institution (think tank) and the Aspen Institute (think tank).
George Soros was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open
Society.
Lester Crown was
a lifetime trustee at the Aspen Institute (think tank) and is the
VP for the Crown Family Foundation.
Crown
Family Foundation was a funder for the Friends of the Israel
Defense Forces.
Newton N. Minow is
the president of the Crown Family Foundation and a senior counsel
at Sidley Austin LLP.
Sidley Austin
LLP is the lobby firm for Israel.
Barack Obama was
an intern at Sidley Austin LLP and is the president of the Barack
Obama administration.
Michelle Obama was
a lawyer at Sidley Austin LLP.
Crown
Family Foundation was a funder for the Friends of the Israel
Defense Forces.
Lester Crown
is the VP for the Crown Family Foundation, was a lifetime trustee
at the Aspen Institute (think tank) and a director at the General
Dynamics Corporation.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Aspen Institute
(think tank).
George Soros was
the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
James S.
Crown is a trustee at the Aspen Institute (think tank) and
a director at the General Dynamics Corporation.
Morris J. Amitay was
a lobbyist for the General Dynamics Corporation and an executive
director for AIPAC.
AIPAC is a
U.S.-based lobby group for Israel.
Wendy Senor
Singer was the head of Jerusalem office for AIPAC and
is Daniel S. Senor’s sister.
Daniel S. Senor is Wendy
Senor Singer’s brother, married to Campbell Brown and was
a guest on Morning Joe.
Campbell Brown is
married to Daniel S. Senor and was a guest on Morning Joe.
Tina Brown is a
frequent guest on Morning Joe and the founder of the Daily
Beast.
Mika Brzezinski is
a co-host for Morning Joe and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s daughter.
Zbigniew
Brzezinski is Mika Brzezinski’s father, a member of
the Bretton Woods Committee and was a board member for the International
Crisis Group.
George Soros is a
member of the Bretton Woods Committee, a board member for the International
Crisis Group and was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote
Open Society.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the International Rescue
Committee.
ONE Campaign is
a partner with the International Rescue
Committee.
Morton H. Halperin
is a director at the ONE Campaign, a senior adviser for the Open
Society Foundations, Mark Halperin’s father, and was a
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
George Soros is the
founder & chairman for the Open Society Foundations and was a supporter
for the Center for American Progress.
Open Society Foundations was a funder for the Center for
American Progress.
Mark Halperin is Morton
H. Halperin’s son, an American journalist, currently a host and
commentator for Newsmax TV and a frequent guest on Morning
Joe.
Morning Joe is
a MSNBC program.
Harold E. Ford Jr. is
a political commentator at MSNBC and was an overseer at the International
Rescue Committee.
Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the International Rescue
Committee.
George Soros was the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Resources: Past
Research
Report: Obama
Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike (Past
Research on Israel)
TUESDAY, MARCH 3,
2015
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2015/03/report-obama-threatened-to-shoot-down.html
Hours After John Kerry
Demands Green Transition Accelerated – His Emissions Closet Swings Wide Open (Connecting the Dots: Cameron Kerry, John Kerry, Teresa
Heinz Kerry, Soros, the Climate Reality Project, the Brookings Institution
(think tank), the EPA and onto the FDA, Pfizer & Johnson & Johnson.
It’s the Network That Never Ends. One Project (Climate Change) Just bleeds into
the Next (Covid Project))
THURSDAY, JULY
21, 2022
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2022/07/hours-after-john-kerry-demands-green.html
Smaller Bites - Newsmax
Drops Journalist Lara Logan Over Immigration Remarks (Connecting
the Dots: Newsmax, MSNBC, Mark Halperin, Morton H. Halperin & Soros Funded
Foundation’s Think Tanks, All Networking)
SATURDAY, OCTOBER
22, 2022
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2022/10/smaller-bites-newsmax-drops-journalist.html
Morning Joe and Mika:
‘Our Hearts Break’ for Disgraced Mark Halperin (Past
Research on Morning Joe & Mark Halperin)
SUNDAY, OCTOBER
29, 2017
https://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2017/10/morning-joe-and-mika-our-hearts-break.html
