British Medical Journal Calls For Full And Immediate Transparency From Big Pharma And Public Health Officials

Written by K. Walker on January 22, 2022

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.


It’s frustrating that this is happening two full years of the pandemic and a year of coercive measures pushing vaccines that don’t work, but it’s happening, and that’s great.

To be fair, it could simply be the media ecosystem that doesn’t promote dissenting voices because it’s “dangerous disinformation” or something.

But, this is so great to see following the very refreshing interview with one of the very few medical experts advising on the pandemic response actually showing some humility and admitted to being a human being who sometimes mistakes.

MUST WATCH: ‘We Have Made Mistakes’ Says Immunology Prof Who Advised Israel’s Vaccine Policy

On Wednesday, one of the world’s oldest general medical journals published an op-ed written by Senior Editor Peter Doshi calling for full transparency on the data regarding treatment and vaccines for COVID-19.

In November, Dr. Doshi was part of an expert panel convened by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and what said about the COVID “vaccines” was eye-opening.

Dr. Doshi is now calling for transparency on the vaccines and therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2.

He begins by discussing the Tamiflu scandal from the late 2000s. We can’t get into it all here, there’s just too much.

To sum up, the drug manufacturer, Roche Pharmaceuticals, withheld their Tamiflu clinical trial data for decades but managed to get governments around the world to stockpile the drug to treat a potential flu outbreak. Things got weird when different organizations around the world came to vastly different conclusions about Tamiflu.  It was meant “to save lives” and the drug was approved for the treatment of flu — in some cases that meant preventing flu-related pneumonia — but it turns out that the clinical trials showed that the drug had no effect on preventing serious complications like pneumonia and taking the drug came at a cost of some nasty side effects. At the behest of the U.K. and Australian governments, the Cochrane Collaboration, a global not-for-profit organization made up of 14,000 academics, examined the data regarding Tamiflu. It took years to get the truth after a lot of stalling from Roche and what the drug company claims is a “misunderstanding” on how to comply with the Cochrane group’s requests for data.

Here’s a brief refresher from an article in the Guardian in 2014.

…Tamiflu has little or no impact on complications of flu infection, such as pneumonia.

That is a scandal because the UK government spent £0.5bn stockpiling this drug in the hope that it would help prevent serious side-effects from flu infection. But the bigger scandal is that Roche broke no law by withholding vital information on how well its drug works. In fact, the methods and results of clinical trials on the drugs we use today are still routinely and legally being withheld from doctors, researchers and patients…

…So does Tamiflu work? From the Cochrane analysis – fully public – Tamiflu does not reduce the number of hospitalisations. There wasn’t enough data to see if it reduces the number of deaths. It does reduce the number of self-reported, unverified cases of pneumonia, but when you look at the five trials with a detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia, there is no significant benefit. It might help prevent flu symptoms, but not asymptomatic spread, and the evidence here is mixed. It will take a few hours off the duration of your flu symptoms. But all this comes at a significant cost of side-effects. Since percentages are hard to visualise, we can make those numbers more tangible by taking the figures from the Cochrane review, and applying them. For example, if a million people take Tamiflu in a pandemic, 45,000 will experience vomiting, 31,000 will experience headache and 11,000 will have psychiatric side-effects.
Source: The Guardian (April 10, 2014.)

With that in the backdrop, here’s what Doshi wrote:

In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The majority of trials that underpinned regulatory approval and government stockpiling of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) were sponsored by the manufacturer; most were unpublished, those that were published were ghostwritten by writers paid by the manufacturer, the people listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied…

…The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.

Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data. And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

Doshi says that Pfizer isn’t unique with this lack of transparency — it’s the same with the other vaccine manufacturers. Moderna has said that their data “may be available… with publication of the final study results in 2022.” The estimated completion date is October 27, 2022, and they’ve said that the data will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete.” So, no guarantees that it will be publicly available. The data from the “Oxford vaccine” developed in partnership with AstraZeneca has been available as of December 31, 2021, but… “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.”

It’s the same with the therapeutics — Regeneron has flatly stated that “participant level data will not be made available to others” while it is still under Emergency-Use Authorization (EUA), but if it does get the green light from the FDA as an approved therapeutic, sharing data “will be considered.” Remdesivir offers limited data and they’ve explained, “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.” So, not much help.

It’s the same with the new COVID pills being pushed by Pfizer and Moderna that are also still in clinical trials.

Basically, we have no transparency.

If you look at the Drugs.com listing for the FDA-approved version of the Pfizer vaccine which is called Comirnaty, you see this little nugget that raises a bunch of questions.

If they didn’t test a vaccine that uses mRNA technology to see if it has any effect on male fertility or potentially causes cancer — what else did they ignore?!

Remember, according to Pfizer, the trial is still ongoing.

In places like New York, the unvaccinated are being treated as second-class citizens as coercive measures of a vaccine passport that excludes them from society regardless of whether or not an individual has already recovered from COVID or the illness isn’t a particularly serious threat for them.

Not to mention that some blue states and Saint Fauci are pushing the jabs on children as young as 5 years old. California took the step to make vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 mandatory to attend school.

On Friday, Pfizer announced trials of a three-dose vaccine are being conducted on babies and toddlers after their low-dose two-shot trial on 2 to 4-year-olds “didn’t have as strong an immune response” as they’d hoped.

And we still have no long-term safety data.

Later, Doshi says, “Big pharma is the least trusted industry. At least three of the many companies making covid-19 vaccines have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars. One pleaded guilty to fraud. Other companies have no pre-covid track record.” He added, “Now the covid pandemic has minted many new pharma billionaires, and vaccine manufacturers have reported tens of billions in revenue.”

Doshi doesn’t just say that we need transparent data from Big Pharma — we need it from our public health officials, too.

As well as access to the underlying data, transparent decision making is essential. Regulators and public health bodies could release details such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2. Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.

Hang on… did Doshi just say that the vaccine trials were “not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2”? Why, yes, yes he did.

This is why the new talking point is that the vaccines “were developed to prevent severe illness and never meant to stop the spread” — because that is what they were created to do. The thing is, they were marketed to the public as a means to prevent transmission because Big Pharma said that their vaccines were “highly efficacious” at preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Check out these dishonest actors insisting that the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID.

And we’ve seen that the “high efficacy” has been dropping over time.

Back to Doshi’s op-ed.

The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.

Twelve years ago we called for the immediate release of raw data from clinical trials. We reiterate that call now. Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions. There is no place for wholesale exemptions from good practice during a pandemic. The public has paid for covid-19 vaccines through vast public funding of research, and it is the public that takes on the balance of benefits and harms that accompany vaccination. The public, therefore, has a right and entitlement to those data, as well as to the interrogation of those data by experts.

Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.
Source: BMJ

Let’s end by looking back at that 2014 article in The Guardian that reiterates what Doshi is saying now.

We often choose to use treatments in medicine, knowing that they have limited benefit, and significant side-effects: but we make an informed decision, balancing the risks and benefits for ourselves…

…We cannot make informed decisions about which treatment is best while information about clinical trials is routinely and legally withheld from doctors, researchers, and patients. Anyone who stands in the way of transparency is exposing patients to avoidable harm. We need regulators, legislators, and professional bodies to demand full transparency. We need clear audit on what information is missing, and who is withholding it.
Source: The Guardian

That call for transparency in 2014 has been repeated in 2022. It needs to be answered right now.

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll and on Gettr @KarenWalker