The principal and founder of a medical research firm told the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19 Pfizer's trials were full of methodological issues too numerous to conclude the vaccine was safe and effective..Deanna McLeod, the principal of medical research firm Kaleidoscope Strategic, gave the testimony to the NCI on its first day of hearings in Langley, BC. on Tuesday..She has a background in immunology and cognitive psychology. She told the NCI she founded her firm after observing “undue industry influence on recommendations related to cancer therapy.” Since then she has analyzed clinical data overemphasizing “benefits of a drug and minimizing safety issues.”.McLeod said the Hippocratic Oath to promote health “comes in direct conflict with the industry's primary goal, which is to make profit.” She alleged that Pfizer's phase three trial “manipulated the data, to emphasize benefits and minimize safety issues in order to profit handsomely off of a world that was looking for a solution to the COVID-19 crisis.”.She alleged a “financial conflict of interest,” because the trials were sponsored solely by Pfizer and BioNTech..“Two founders of BioNTech, were part of the author list, and...their company went on to profit $9 billion...This is probably the highest stake trial that's ever been done,” McLeod said..“The lead author and the senior author, the two authors that are responsible for the research, actually either had stocks, or were employees of Pfizer.”.“Pfizer has a long history of fraud, they've been convicted of fraud, and they've also been convicted of manipulating the data, and that's on the public record,” she said..“The BMJ journal, published a whistleblower report actually indicating that Vintavia, which was the run the clinical research organization that ran the trial, actually was fraudulently manipulating data. And so there's a case in courts right now where they've been accused of that.”.A slide presentation accompanying the presentation included a chart of the organizations responsible for the approval of the vaccine. She said the Gates Foundation funds the World Health Organization, has a strong relationship with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergies and Infections Diseases..“And in addition, they hold a patent for the spike protein that was used in some of these mRNA products,” she said..McLeod said “global entities” had also made partnerships with universities, whose experts give advice, and the media gets a lot of advertising revenues from pharmaceuticals. In Canada, a health and biosciences economic strategy table has recommended deregulation in recent years, McLeod said..“They actually put a new test in for the actual mRNA product...It basically didn't have to prove safety anymore...[just] that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks, which is a very loosey-goosey type thing,” McLeod explained..“What they were able to do is push those products forward with preliminary data, and in a way that made the public think that they'd been proven safe when they hadn't been.”.McLeod believes care home deaths among the elderly were falsely leveraged to push for vaccines..“There are physical reasons because of community spread that these elderly people were hardest hit and that is not something that can be solved by an mRNA product. However, that was used as the basis for clinic creating the perception of the need.”.McLeod said the timing of when COVID-19 variants suggested the vaccine arrived a little late to be effective, but also too soon in testing to warrant approval..“The original mRNA product was not very effective, or it was considerably less effective on these new variants...Therefore, the phase three trial that is the cornerstone of this whole campaign, would be clinically irrelevant and should be disregarded out of hand based on that alone,” she said..McLeod said Pfizer was selective in the way it marketed its trial findings, and its net benefit was too marginal on too small a sample size to make definitive conclusions..“They said that it was 91% effective in terms of symptomatic cases, and 97% effective in terms of severe cases. But if you actually look at the absolute risk change...only about 4% of people actually benefited from this particular vaccine. And in terms of stopping severe disease, it was 0.1%,” she explained..“You should have said the data is unreliable, and we can't we can't move forward with this particular thing. But instead, what they said was, it's highly effective, let's keep going.”
