By Brownstone Institute

Though untruthful testimony pales in comparison to the crimes of the last five years, perjury may be the most effective charge to impose accountability on the wrongdoers behind the Covid Regime.

In the wake of World War II, American law enforcement discovered that top government officials had committed espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. The Department of Justice was often unable to charge them as classified documents and bureaucratic secrecy risked prosecutorial dead ends.

But a 35-year-old Congressman from California devised a plan to catch the actors in the coverups of their crimes. Rep. Richard Nixon grilled State Department Official Alger Hiss on his associations with professed Soviet spies, including Whittaker Chambers. Hiss lied under oath by claiming he never met Chambers, and a jury subsequently convicted him of two counts of perjury in 1950.

Perjury, though a petty charge compared to treason, allowed prosecutors to present a clear case for a crime that requires three basic elements: (1) the declarant took an oath to testify truthfully; (2) the declarant knowingly made a false statement; and (3) the declarant’s false statement related to a material fact.

Now, Americans again face the distressing realization that leading academic, scientific, and governmental officials were guilty of deception, profiteering, and entangling foreign relationships in a global crisis. Classified documents and bureaucratic secrecy offer far greater protection than they did 75 years ago, but the case for perjury against Peter Daszak is now clear.

1. Daszak testified under oath

Last week, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report recommending EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak be “formally debarred and criminally investigated as a result of his actions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Daszak funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in US taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to fund gain-of-function research and then spearheaded censorship efforts by secretly organizing a statement issued by the Lancet in February 2020 calling lab-leak hypotheses “conspiracy theories” that “create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the right against this virus.”

In November, Daszak testified behind closed doors for nine and a half hours. A House Report subsequently noted that his organization “continued to obstruct” ongoing investigations. On May 1, 2024, he appeared before Congress.

“Daszak’s testimony was a parade of perjury,” Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, told the New York Post. “A litany of lies. One knowing, willful, brazen and provable lie after another.”

Though Daszak tried to evade the Congressional Committee with obfuscation and non–answers, he made at least three categories of statements that subject him to perjury charges.

2. Daszak knowingly made false statements

On Gain-of-Function Research 

Daszak insists that his groups have not engaged in gain-of-function research, but the evidence suggests he has repeatedly lied under oath.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) asked, “You did not fund any research that modified a virus to make it more infectious among humans?” Daszak responded immediately, “EcoHealth Alliance never has, and did not do gain of function research, by definition.”

That “definition,” well known to Daszak, is research that “improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease,” as one 2014 US Government report explained.

Daszak’s denial is entirely inconsistent with his own words and his group’s well-documented history of government grants.

In July 2016, an NIH official informed Daszak that his requests for funding for research that would be “conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology” had been approved. “This is terrific!” Daszak responded to the NIH. “We are very happy to hear that our Gain of Function research funding pause has been lifted.”

Daszak’s excitement reflected EcoHealth’s history of gain-of-function research.

In 2014, NIH awarded EcoHealth a $3.7 million grant to study bat coronaviruses, which it conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The researchers reported that their lab-altered coronaviruses reproduced far more quickly than the original virus in the lungs of genetically engineered mice.

In 2018, EcoHealth submitted a $14 million grant proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that suggested a partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in which they would construct bat coronaviruses and insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a means to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Though the request was denied, it was consistent with EcoHealth’s line of work.

In 2021, NIH admitted in a letter to Congress that EcoHealth enhanced a bat coronavirus to become more infectious to humans, and EcoHealth violated the terms of its grant by failing to report that the research increased the viral growth of the pathogen tenfold.

Daszak can plead ignorance on the meaning of gain-of-function research (he claims he does not “have a personal definition”), but there is a well-documented history demonstrating his obstinate pursuit of gain-of-function research at EcoHealth.

On Reporting Failures

Daszak and EcoHealth have admitted to failing to file timely reports on their research, which were required under the terms of their NIH grants. For example, EcoHealth did not submit its September 2019 annual report until 2021.

While this may seem like a mundane matter of bureaucratic non-compliance, the evidence suggests it was an act of deliberate deception. That progress report revealed a “limited experiment” in which EcoHealth found that laboratory mice infected with a lab-altered coronavirus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring virus. In other words, it revealed deliberate gain-of-function research.

While EcoHealth concealed the report for nearly two years, Daszak led efforts to censor and dismiss any concerns that Covid emerged from a lab.

In Congressional testimony, Daszak claimed that he did not submit the report because he was “locked out” of the NIH system and blocked from submitting it. But a forensic investigation “never found any evidence that they had been locked out of [the NIH] system.”

Circumstantial evidence further suggests that Daszak perjured himself on this point. In previous reports, Daszak directly emailed progress reports to his NIAID program officer after filing it with the NIH system. In 2018, for example, he wrote, “I just wanted to send you a pdf of our Year 4 Report.”

In 2019, however, he was conspicuously silent. Daszak and his team made no effort to contact NIAID about the annual report, nor did EcoHealth send a single request or notification to the NIH that it had been “locked out” of the online system.

All the evidence suggests that Daszak lied about concealing the report, and he had every motive to do so.

On Communications with Fauci’s Top Advisor

One lesser-known character in the Daszak testimony was Dr. David Morens, who served as a top advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID. In his November testimony, Daszak referred to Morens as a “mentor.”

In the past, Dr. Morens has deliberately violated government requirements by using his personal email accounts to evade transparency requests. As he wrote in one email, “I always try to communicate over gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly…I will delete anything I don’t want to see in The New York Times.”

In his Congressional testimony, Daszak admitted to working with Morens to reinstate federal funding for EcoHealth. Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA.) asked Daszak, “Were you aware that Dr. David Morens was communicating with you on his personal Gmail account to avoid FOIA and public accountability?”

Daszak responded that these communications were just related to “personal matters.” Rep. McCormick followed up, “Personal matters about reinstating a public grant.”

Daszak argued that the conversations were about “personal and security issues” rather than “political security issues” because he only asked for “advice as a friend and colleague.” But Morens was not a colleague; he was part of the apparatus that funded Daszak’s enterprise through taxpayer money.

Daszak’s statements were not mere obfuscations; they were deliberate lies to hide the truth of his role in gain-of-function research and his relationship with the US Government.

3. The Lies Were Material 

Daszak’s statements clearly fall under the broad legal definition of materiality. They concerned the most important questions surrounding Congressional inquiries into Covid: the origins of the virus, ongoing gain-of-function research, government corruption, and self-interested lies.

At every available opportunity, Daszak worked to deceive the public. Before the outbreak of Covid, he worked with government officials to circumvent President Obama’s gain-of-function

research moratorium. In 2019, he concealed progress reports that revealed EcoHealth’s research had violated government regulations. Months later, he secretly authored the Lancet letter denouncing the lab leak theory without revealing his conflict-of-interest of ongoing collaboration with the Wuhan of Virology.

Just last month, Daszak emailed colleagues about his interest in obstructing the Congressional investigation, writing, “Each day of delay helps.” Daszak then refused to respond to government demands for EcoHealth documents, further hindering the Government investigation. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, described this as evidence of his “clearly bad faith and dilatory motivations.”

That deception mutated into perjury as Daszak took an oath to testify truthfully before Congress. While the Covid regime will attempt to cloak their crimes with bureaucratic redactions and legal loopholes, perjury offers a clear means to hold wrongdoers accountable.

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/perjury-the-case-against-peter-daszak/

The Vigilant Fox

World-renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough says that Donald Trump is missing out on the “political opportunity of a lifetime” if he doesn’t soon reverse course on the disastrous COVID-19 injections.

This declaration came during a riveting conversation on the Tommy T Podcast.

Dr. McCullough suggested that Trump doesn’t necessarily have to admit that he was wrong. Instead, he could throw Fauci and Biden under the bus because Fauci is a deceiver who has his credibility “is in the tank” and “all the safety problems in the vaccine occurred under Biden.”

Podcast host Tommy T added that Trump could save face and send shockwaves through the political landscape with a bit of messaging that sounds like this:

Join 58K+ subscribers and 920K+ 𝕏 users who follow the work of Vigilant Fox. Subscribe to Vigilant News today to get the scoop on stories you won’t see anywhere else.

Upgrade to paid

“We found out now, after further research, it [COVID vaccine] is no good. And that guy [Biden] is trying to kill you and your kids.” “If he said that, whoa!” Tommy T exclaimed.

Such a move would give Trump:

• Another massive talking point against Biden.

• Votes that would otherwise swing in the favor of Robert Kennedy Jr.

• An opportunity to be the hero that gave the vaccine issue the momentum it needs, making it a crime that can no longer be denied.

Remember, all the vaccine safety problems emerged while Biden was in office. Trump could argue that Biden’s oversight of vaccine safety was a complete disaster. Plus, Biden is the one who demonized the unvaccinated and enacted sweeping vaccine mandates, affecting approximately 100 million Americans.

“Honestly, I think it’s the political opportunity of a lifetime,” remarked Dr. McCullough. “And if the answer is it’s a weakness that he can’t admit he’s wrong, then that weakness could cost him.”

[…]

Via https://vigilantfox.news/p/dr-peter-mccullough-issues-urgent

Episode 21 The Discovery of Tutankhamen’s Tomb

The History of Ancient Egypt

Professor Robert Brier

Film Review

Tutankhamen (aka King Tut) was the son of Ankenaten (see Egypt’s Ankenaten: The World’s First Monotheistic Ruler). Most of this lecture concerns the long search for his tomb in the Valley of the Kings. It was Howard Carter, a self-taught working class archeologist, who searched for, and ultimately found, the lost tomb. Owing to the efforts of later pharaohs to obliterate any historical record of Ankenaten and his descendants, archeologists had no knowledge of his existence prior to Carter’s discovery of Tutakamen’s name in a cartouche* in the Valley of the Kings in the early 1900s.

After a five-year search, Carter ultimately located Tutakamen’ tomb in 1922. Unlike most tombs in the Valley of the Kings, it was totally undisturbed and still contained Tutakamen’s mummy in the sarcophagus.

It took a full year to carefully clear all the beautiful golden furniture and utensils from the outer chamber.

Tutakamen’s mummy (the only intact mummy ever recovered from the Valley of the Kings) was found inside a 250 pound solid gold coffin inside a large stone sarcophagus, inside a wooden shrine in the burial chamber. The tomb contained no inscriptions or papyri describing who his parents were. The burial chamber also contained his throne and baby sandals.

*Inscribing their name inside a cartouche was the primary way Egyptians pharaohs designated their divinity.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/1492791/1492838

Matthew Petti

For years, the U.S. government has bought information on private citizens from commercial data brokers. Now, for the first time ever, American spymasters are admitting that this data is sensitive—but they’re leaving it up to the spy agencies on how to use it.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Avril Haines released a “Policy Framework for Commercially Available Information.” Her office oversees 18 agencies in the “intelligence community,” including the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA), and all military intelligence branches.

In the 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant to obtain mobile phone location data from phone companies. (During the case, the Reason Foundation filed an amicus brief against warrantless snooping.) As a workaround, the feds instead started buying data from third-party brokers.

Haines’ new framework claims that “additional clarity” on the government’s policies will help protect Americans’ privacy. Yet the document is vague about the specific limits. It orders the agencies themselves to come up with “safeguards that are tailored to the sensitivity of the information” and write an annual report on how they use this data.

As national security journalist Spencer Ackerman points out in his Forever Wars newsletter, the framework doesn’t require the feds to delete old purchased data. Earlier this year, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) called on the NSA to purge all data that it bought without a warrant and without following the Federal Trade Commission’s privacy policies.

“The framework’s absence of clear rules about what commercially available information can and cannot be purchased by the intelligence community reinforces the need for Congress to pass legislation protecting the rights of Americans,” Wyden tells Reason. “The DNI’s framework is nonetheless an important step forward in starting to bring the intelligence community under a set of principles and policies, and in documenting all the various programs so that they can be overseen.”

The senator says he will keep working to ensure “that Congress is fully informed of all these programs.” He and Rand Paul (R–Ky.) have been trying to pass the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would ban buying data from third-party brokers. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives last month, the Biden administration opposes it.

Wyden has been aggressively pushing for transparency on data purchases over the past few years. In 2021, he uncovered that the Defense Intelligence Agency was buying Americans’ smartphone location data. That same year, he sent a letter to Haines and CIA Director Bill Burns complaining about a secretive CIA data collection program. (In an Orwellian turn, the letter itself was classified until 2022.) This year, Wyden revealed more details on NSA data purchases.

Some of this data is collected and sold directly by the apps. For example, an intelligence company called X-Mode once paid MuslimPro, an app that offers a daily prayer calendar and a compass pointing towards Mecca, to include a few lines of location tracking code. X-Mode then sold the data to U.S. government agencies. MuslimPro claims that it did not intend to sell the data to the government and ended the arrangement after the story broke.

In other cases, the data is siphoned from advertising markets. Every time a user opens a website with paid advertisements, their location and attributes appear on a real-time bidding (RTB) exchange, a virtual auction where companies buy ad space. Data brokers posing as advertisers scrape the listings for information on users.

“Any government with a halfway decent cyber intelligence program is participating in these RTB exchanges, because it’s such an immensely valuable source of data,” says Byron Tau, author of Means of Control: How the Hidden Alliance of Tech and Government Is Creating a New American Surveillance State.

As a demonstration of how powerful RTB data is, an intelligence contractor used data from the dating app Grindr to track gay government employees from their offices to their homes, Tau reported in his book. Another firm called Near Intelligence used RTB data to help anti-abortion groups track women who visited Planned Parenthood clinics.

Earlier this year, WIRED revealed that Near Intelligence had used RTB data to build a dossier on sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s associates, tracing mobile phone owners from his private island to addresses in the continental United States and other countries.

The new U.S. intelligence policy is “sort of a recognition that this data is actually sensitive, which is a bit of a change,” Tau notes. “Early on, government lawyers were saying basically it’s anonymized, so no privacy problem here.”

For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection insisted in a 2018 privacy assessment that the agency “receives only anonymized data from commercial sources…with no associated PII,” or personally identifiable information. But the border cops have used that supposedly anonymous data to track and arrest specific people.

Lawyers for the Internal Revenue Service, on the other hand, have argued that users voluntarily handed over the information, so the government is free to use it. Tau points out that users don’t really know how their data is being resold, and even the RTB exchanges themselves aren’t supposed to be used for data scraping.

“A lot of these companies that are collecting data from the global population don’t have a real consumer relationship” with the people they’re spying on, Tau says. “Unless you know how to decompile software and you’re technically savvy, you can’t even make informed choices.”

[…]

Via https://reason.com/2024/05/15/heres-how-the-cia-plans-to-use-your-ad-tracking-data/

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 14.05.2024

A senior US Air Force official has sent defense contractors a strongly worded letter over delays to the Vulcan Centaur heavy-lift launch vehicle program – initiated to replace the workhorse Atlas V, which uses Russian-made RD-180 engines. The delay signals the US’s inability even to copy Russian-made equipment, a leading space researcher says.

US Air Force Assistant Secretary Frank Calvelli has sent the heads of Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s United Launch Alliance space divisions an “unusually blunt” appeal highlighting Pentagon concerns over the years-long delays to the Vulcan rocket project.

“I am growing concerned with ULA’s ability to scale manufacturing of its Vulcan rocket and scale its launch cadence to meet our needs. Currently there is military satellite capability sitting on the ground due to Vulcan delays,” Calvelli complained.

“As the owners of ULA, and given the manufacturing prowess of Boeing and Lockheed Martin corporations, I recommend that you work together over the next 90 days to complete an independent review of ULA’s ability to scale its launch cadence to meet” contract requirements, the official urged.

Calvelli expressed concerns about the ULA’s poor flight record to date, pointing out that to meet its contract obligations, it would have to launch 25 missions for the Pentagon by the end of 2027. The alliance, separately bound to launch 38 rockets for Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellite constellation, launched only three missions through 2023.

“Launch is critical to our ability to transform our space architecture. We are counting on Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and the ULA team to be successful in getting critical capabilities into space for our warfighters,” the assistant secretary wrote.

The United Launch Alliance kicked off the Vulcan’s development a decade ago amid a push by Washington to phase out the purchase of Russian-made RD-180 engines used on the Vulcan’s predecessor, the Atlas V, to put satellites into orbit. The Vulcan has a stated launch capacity of 27.2 tons, and an estimated expected cost of $100-$200 million per launch, compared to 8.2-18.85 tons and $1090 million per launch for the Atlas V, depending on variant.

Initially projected to start flying in 2019, the Vulcan program has faced half a decade of delays, owing partly to major issues with the rocket’s BE-4 engines, developed by Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space company. The first Vulcan rocket successfully launched in January of this year, but quickly ran into new problems, including delays to the development of the Air Force’s Soviet-inspired Dream Chaser spaceplane.

The program will require a second flight before it can be certified by the Pentagon for use for national security and intelligence collection-related missions, with ULA expecting the program’s second launch to take place sometime later this year.

Calvelli did not elaborate on the nature of his concerns with the Vulcan program, instead shifting the discussion to national security and the US’s strategic competition with Beijing.

“The United States continues to face an unprecedented strategic competitor in China, and our space environment continues to become more contested, congested and competitive. We have seen exponential growth of in-space activity, including counterspace threats, and our adversaries would seek to deny us the advantage we get from space during a potential conflict,” he wrote.

ULA assures that it’s on track to ramping up its rocket production capabilities, with CEO Tony Bruno telling media that the Vulcan “is much less expensive” than the Atlas V with its Russian-made RD-180s, and that future plans to reuse the new, American-made engines will result in “economies of scale” that will make it “cheaper over time.”

Boeing responded to Calvelli’s letter by promising to get “on more of a wartime footing to stay ahead of the threat,” and agreed with the senior Air Force officer’s sense that “a quicker and more reliable launch cadence is critical to meeting that need.”
Rocket Science

The problems surrounding the Vulcan rocket and its engines signal major issues for US space rocket engineering, with the ULA delay demonstrating that American rocket scientists currently can’t even effectively copy Russian engines, much less create safe, reliable engines of their own, says Dr. Natan Eismont, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Scientists’ Space Research Institute, told Sputnik.

“There have been attempts to copy RD-180 engines from the moment they were sold to the Americans,” Eismont recalled. From the early 2000s onward, “launches were carried out using the Atlas III, and then a lot using the Atlas V, [which] provided for nearly half of all American launches. This is significant…There were attempts to copy the RD-180 from the start, and to this day they remain just that – attempts. The Americans haven’t been able to create an engine with characteristics close to matching the RD-180.”

Created in the 1990s, the RD-180 is a derivative of the legendary RD-170/171 series of rocket engines, developed in the 1980s by Energomash for the super-heavy Energiya launch vehicle, which was designed to shuttle up to 100 tons of useful cargo into Low Earth Orbit, to launch the Buran space shuttle, and deploy the next generation of space station components, and pieces of large, Moon and Mars-faring spacecraft of the future.

With the Soviet space program curtailed dramatically after the USSR’s collapse, budding cooperation with the US in the 1990s instead led to the development of the RD-180, and the export of over 120 of these engines to the US between 2000 and 2021.

The question of why the Americans have not been able to develop an engine with characteristics comparable to the RD-180, or even copy the Russian-made engine, stems from a problem which has plagued the US going back almost to the start of the space age, Eismont says.

“Efficiency is measured by specific thrust [the ratio of net thrust/total intake airflow, ed.], which for the RD-180 is 400 tons from the Earth’s surface, and 430 tons in a vacuum. These characteristics are generally achievable. But there’s also the specific impulse [a measure of how efficiently the engine generates thrust, ed.] and here, no rocket apart from ours has been able to achieve comparable parameters. Because to obtain characteristics comparable to those achieved by the RD-180, one must use a fairly high level of pressure in the combustion chamber – more than 200 atmospheres,” which can be dangerous if done improperly, the academic explained.

“At the same time, high-frequency oscillations arise,” Eismont added. “The secret lies in determining the moment during testing after which these fluctuations become possible, and immediately turning off the engine at that precise moment. How to do that – what parameters are necessary here, what parameters are acceptable, and how issues can be overcome – it appears that no one apart from our specialists knows this. Simply handing over the engine with all its documentation is not enough. Because there are subtleties in the manufacture of the engine which are difficult to convey using documentation.”

That’s not to say that American rocket scientists will not be able to ever overcome these difficulties, the observer emphasized. They can and will, but doing so “requires a lot of money and time,” and knowledge enough to pinpoint when testing enters the danger zone to prevent the destruction of “very expensive” test equipment.

Solving this issue will be “critical” for the Americans, Eismont believes.

“Here, [the ULA] can turn to [Space X CEO Elon] Musk, where, in general, the same tasks were set, and the company has its own rocket engine. For Musk too, everything didn’t work out straight away or to the end. Here, in general, we can say that Musk has not achieved the required level of reliability. SpaceX’s engine is in fact also an attempt to copy the RD-180… They are probably further along than say Boeing or others involved [in the Vulcan program, ed.]. But nevertheless, he had to come to terms with the fact that he could not manage without accidents. That is, the process turned out to be slower and more expensive than planned,” the academic explained.

Besides documentation, what US rocket scientists are really lacking is specialists, who can’t be replaced by imported engines, technical or even testing documentation.
“What you need are people involved in the project. Who will give the Americans these people? No one,” Eismont said.

This isn’t anything new, the academic recalled, pointing out that the US has had problems with its rocketry programs going back to the Apollo program and the days of the Saturn 5 rocket. “If you look at the technical characteristics of these American engines, they were strikingly worse than those that the USSR had at the time,” he said.

“It’s difficult to say why this was, but the Americans lagged behind here from the start. As for Soviet and Russian engines, they display an exceptional level of reliability. From the time that the Americans purchased these particular engines from us, they have not had any accidents. That is, the entire program was developed and carried out in accordance with the experience accumulated by that time by Energomash. Here, they really are ahead of everyone else.”

Ivan Moiseev, the head of the Russian Institute of Space Policy, echoed Eismont’s assessment regarding the RD-180, telling Sputnik that this is an “excellent” engine, with “not a single failure in over 100 launches.”

“The contract was concluded in 1996 and completed in 2021 – three years ago. Accordingly, the Americans still have some engines, they can still launch the Atlas V,” Moiseev said.

[…]

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20240514/vulcan-programs-delay-shows-us-cant-even-copy-much-less-replace-russias-rocket-engine-know-how-1118431306.html

By Daniel Greer

A high-profile healthcare lawsuit in Beaumont, Texas, is flying under the radar—which is just how the federal government and Pfizer want it. 

The Department of Justice recently argued that a whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer, filed by Brook Jackson, should be dismissed.

Jackson, a 20-year veteran in clinical trial administration employed by a third-party vendor (Ventavia Research Group), worked on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trials in 2020. Alarmed by what she witnessed, Jackson raised concerns to her superiors, Pfizer, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2020.

She claimed the trial was being run, documented, and reported in a manner that violated Federal law and was potentially dangerous.

Hours after contacting the FDA on September 25, 2020, Jackson was fired. Her sealed whistleblower complaint seemed to stall, with the FDA not investigating her claims. Faced with inaction, Jackson filed a lawsuit.

As the case progressed towards discovery, the DOJ intervened, asking the judge to dismiss the case. Jackson argues that the government failed to articulate a legitimate reason for dismissal and did not demonstrate why the burdens of continued litigation outweigh its benefits.

Disturbingly, a former FDA lawyer who worked at the agency when Jackson’s complaint was filed has moved to the DOJ and is now representing the government in its attempt to shut down the suit, raising concerns about regulatory capture and the use of government to shield companies from accountability.

In 2021, the British Medical Journal published an article investigating Jackson’s claims and found them credible. The journal’s investigation concluded that Jackson’s account was supported by documentation and raised serious questions about the integrity of Pfizer’s vaccine trials and the FDA’s oversight.

Other former Ventavia employees vouched for Jackson’s complaint, describing a “helter-skelter” work environment and lack of oversight.

Despite evidence and corroboration, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia after Jackson’s complaint, and Pfizer did not mention any problems at Ventavia in its FDA submission for emergency use authorization.

BMJ’s findings lend significant credibility to Jackson’s claims and raise serious questions about the integrity of Pfizer’s vaccine trial data, the adequacy of regulatory oversight, and, ultimately, the approved emergency use authorization.

Should the court grant the DOJ’s request for dismissal, it could send a chilling message to would-be whistleblowers and undermine public trust in the vaccine approval process. The BMJ investigation suggests that Jackson’s concerns deserve a thorough examination, which might only occur if her lawsuit moves forward.

Additionally, the revelation that a former FDA official involved in the vaccine’s approval is now working for the DOJ and arguing for the lawsuit’s dismissal after the FDA appears to have outed Jackson to her employer, ultimately leading to her firing, raises further questions about potential conflicts of interest and regulatory capture.

[…]

Via https://lyumon1834.wordpress.com/2024/05/14/the-doj-is-trying-to-protect-pfizer-from-a-whistleblower-lawsuit/