The Vigilant Fox

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.

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 19 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.

(Credit to Naomi Wolf, Amy Kelly, and the DailyClout/Bannon War Room volunteers for these discoveries)

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.”

Thanks for reading.

Subscribe to this page for more COVID reports and stories that matter.

Watch the full conversation with Brook Jackson and Maria Zeee below.

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.  

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice. 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.  

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice. 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities. 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced. 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one. 

He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.” 

The scale of the deceptions is becoming harder for most Australians to avoid if they are paying attention. The mainstream media, for example, is now running stories that the virus originated in a laboratory. Those who have memories will recall that in 2020 anyone suggesting that the virus was artificially made were accused of anti-China racism, especially the state broadcasters SBS and the ABC. Likewise, most politicians and academics dismissed the lab leak theory. To say the least, no one is holding up their hand to take responsibility for their errors. 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?” 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?  

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.  

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic. 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”