When Does Cherry Picking Data Become a Crime?
A manufacturer can be convicted of fraud and other crimes if the manufacturer engaged in another criminal or illegal activity related to the safety and efficacy of 'vaccines'
Cherry picking data is a common practice in the Big Pharma industry. It’s the deliberate practice of presenting the results of a study or experiment that best support a study’s objectives instead of reporting all the findings. Big Pharma companies and world renowned doctors cherry pick data as frequently as drivers exceed the speed limit on the 405 freeway in southern California.
I’ve sat in many med-legal meetings where I pointed out that the client or their competitor cherry picked data. It’s the polite way of calling out falsified reports and documents, also known as fraud.
The question isn’t whether or not Pfizer committed fraud, the question is in what situation does fraud (cherry picking data) become a crime under current U.S. law?
Is it a crime just because a Big Pharma company got caught? I would bet 99.9% of judges would not rule against Pfizer because;
the government/FDA/HHS assisted Pfizer with the fraud, and
in light of the 2016 Escobar ruling, in which the judge essentially ruled that if a government contractor commits fraud and the government continues to pay the contractor after becoming aware of the fraud, then the fraud is considered ‘immaterial’ or non-existent.
Did the FDA Assist Pfizer with Fraud?
The Kingston Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Pfizer reported an alarmingly high number of cases of mild-to-moderate disease, severe disease, and deaths in their Phase 2/3 trial data submitted to the FDA, a trial that was primarily comprised of healthy individuals (prior to being injected with mRNA that is). Pfizer informed the FDA in their data submissions that they were simply not going to count most of these cases in their safety and efficacy analysis for purposes of FDA approval.
For example, in the 6-month data submitted to the FDA, more 10% (2,285) of study participants who were injected with Pfizer’s mRNA technology developed COVID-19 after their second dose.
Pfizer told the FDA they’re not including 2,285 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 in their efficacy analysis. Why? Pfizer states the cases were diagnosed but allegedly not confirmed, but the real reason is that efficacy was defined in the study as preventing COVID-19, so Pfizer would have failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoint and not received FDA approval if the cases were included in the analysis.
The real data proves that mRNA technology does nothing to prevent COVID-19 and actually causes it. So Pfizer informed the FDA that they were going to falsify the data for purposes of FDA approval, and the FDA was apparently ‘totally cool with it.’
I assume the FDA felt some level of moral responsibility, because they asked Pfizer to do a post-hoc analysis and continue to track participants in the study, specifically to see how the ‘placebo’ group faired against COVID-19 (which became a control group when they began receiving injections of mRNA technology in January of 2021).
Per the September 17, 2021, FDA committee meeting, Pfizer submitted the post-hoc analysis demonstrating that two (2) injections of Pfizer’s mRNA technology increases a person risk for developing COVID-19 over time.
Furthermore, per the interim Phase 3 data submitted in November 2020, not only does Pfizer’s mRNA technology NOT prevent mild to moderate disease, Pfizer’s mRNA technology causes SEVERE COVID-19 within 7 days of being injected.
Page 41 of PFIZER’s EUA submission, states that there were 409 patients who had COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of getting their first (1st) or second (2nd) Pfizer injection, BUT these patients did not have a positive PCR-test for SARS-CoV-2.
Per PFIZER’s own document, “unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would have otherwise been detected.”
Per PFIZER’s interim Phase 3 data submission, clinically significant or severe COVID-19 cases were defined as kidney, liver or neurological dysfunction, low oxygen levels, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, systemic shock, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), or death.
It’s not been disclosed to the American people how many of these 409 study participants were disabled or died after being injected with Pfizer’s mRNA technology.
The excuse that mild, moderate, and severe cases of COVID-19 were not included in the final analysis for FDA approval due to a lack of a positive PCR test is a red herring. The PCR tests have no valid applications in diagnosing COVID-19.
In the CDC’s own Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC concluded that the odds that a patient who was hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID-19 would also have a positive PCR test confirming the diagnosis was only 5%-9%. The PCR tests are useless as a diagnostic.
In their 6-month data submission, Pfizer documented twenty-one (21) deaths of participants who died after being injected with their mRNA technology.
On page 70, under Section 220.127.116.11 Deaths, Pfizer states, “Deaths occurred 62 to 142 days following the last dose of the vaccine.”
On page 71, Pfizer states that nine (9) of the deaths were from cardiac complications and, “The time from the last dose of BNT-162b2 to a cardiac-related death was 25-128 days.”
Which is it Pfizer? Was the earliest death reported 62 days after a participant’s last dose of mRNA technology or 25 days after?
This is important to note because it’s obvious Pfizer fraudulently edited their death data. My question is, ‘In addition to changing the days to onset of death, what other data did Pfizer’s regulatory team fraudulently edit?’
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Kingston Report to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.