Connect with us

COVID-19

US Government ADMITS It Approved Pfizer’s COVID “Vaccine” Despite Knowing About a Long List of Trial Violations

Published

7 minute read

 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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Canadian Health Department funds study to determine effects of COVID lockdowns on children

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The commissioned study will assess the impact on kids’ mental well-being of COVID lockdowns and ‘remote’ school classes that banned outdoor play and in-person learning.

Canada’s Department of Health has commissioned research to study the impact of outdoor play on kids’ mental well-being in light of COVID lockdowns and “remote” school classes that, for a time, banned outdoor play and in-person learning throughout most of the nation. 

In a notice to consultants titled “Systematic Literature Reviews And Meta Analyses Supporting Two Projects On Children’s Health And Covid-19,” the Department of Health admitted that “Exposure to green space has been consistently associated with protective effects on children’s physical and mental health.”

A final report, which is due in 2026, will provide “Health Canada with a comprehensive assessment of current evidence, identify key knowledge gaps and inform surveillance and policy planning for future pandemics and other public health emergencies.”

Bruce Squires, president of McMaster Children’s Hospital of Hamilton, Ontario, noted in 2022 that “Canada’s children and youth have borne the brunt” of COVID lockdowns.

From about March 2020 to mid-2022, most of Canada was under various COVID-19 mandates and lockdowns, including mask mandates, at the local, provincial, and federal levels. Schools were shut down, parks were closed, and most kids’ sports were cancelled. 

Mandatory facemask polices were common in Canada and all over the world for years during the COVID crisis despite over 170 studies showing they were not effective in stopping the spread of COVID and were, in fact, harmful, especially to children.

In October 2021, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector, saying the un-jabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a new report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) raised alarm bells over the “harms caused” by COVID-19 lockdowns and injections imposed by various levels of government as well as a rise in unexplained deaths and bloated COVID-19 death statistics.

Indeed, a recent study showed that COVID masking policies left children less able to differentiate people’s emotions behind facial expressions.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Ontario student appeals ruling that dismissed religious objection to abortion-tainted COVID shot

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

An Ontario Tech University student is seeking judicial review after the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled his beliefs did not qualify as protected ‘creed.’

An Ontario university student who was punished for refusing the COVID shot is contesting a tribunal ruling that rejected his religious objection to the vaccine.

In a November 28 press release, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced that a judicial review has been filed on behalf of former Ontario Tech University student Philip Anisimov after his religious objection to the COVID vaccine was dismissed by an Ontario court.

“Mr. Anisimov’s objection to the Covid vaccine was deeply rooted in his religious commitment to live according to biblical precepts,” Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir declared. “He hopes the Divisional Court will clarify that his religious objection was protected by the Human Rights Code and entitled to protection.”

In 2021, Ontario mandated that all students in the province show proof of vaccination unless they had an exemption or agreed to attend a COVID jab education session boasting about the shots. The third option was not available at Ontario Tech University, as schools could choose whether or not they would offer such a program to students.

Anisimov had requested an exemption from the experimental, abortion-tainted COVID shots on religious grounds but was denied and deregistered from his courses.

He was then forced to spend an entire extra year to complete his studies. According to his lawyers, Ontario Tech University’s decision to not approve his COVID jab exemption request “not only disrupted his career plans but also violated his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of religion, as protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code.”

The university’s refusal to honor his exemption prompted Anisimov to take legal action in April with help of the JCCF. However, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario rejected his religious objection, arguing that it was not protected as a “creed” under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Now, Anisimov is appealing the ruling, hoping that his case will serve as a precedent for justice for students who were discriminated against for refusing the abortion-tainted vaccine.

“My hope is that this case helps set an important precedent and encourages Canadians to reflect on the direction our society is taking,” he explained. “My trust is that God does all things for the good of those who love Him, who are called by His purposes.”

Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the vaccines on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X