The BMJ wrote an article back in 2009, titled “We want raw data, now” and reported that an update in the Cochrane review had failed to verify claims based on an analysis of 10 drug company trials that said Tamiflu reduced the risk in healthy adults.

They argued that academics were also left with uncertainty over the role of Tamiflu in reducing complications in healthy adults. Clearly, nothing has changed, as the BMJ has now reiterated that demand for data that should show the COVID jabs are “safe and effective” before actually administering it to the global population!

Over ten years ago the British Medical Journal reported that they were dominated by what they referred to as a “cluster” of articles all with the same conclusion (1,2,3,4,5,6) – the evidence that oseltamivir (Tamiflu) a treatment developed by a drug company, Hoffman-La Roche to prevent and treat “flu”, reduced complications in otherwise healthy people with pandemic influenza was uncertain and that they needed a radical change on the rules regarding access to trial data (source).

Additionally, Cochrane, which is a global independent network of researchers and health professionals, published papers that said nothing of trial results regarding patients judged to be at high risk of complications such as children under 5, pregnant women, and individuals with underlying medical conditions.

Billions of Pounds Spent on the Tamiflu Stockpiles

Yet governments around the world had already spent billions of pounds stockpiling Tamiflu. The Public Accounts Committee assessed the cost of stockpiling the treatment in the UK alone as being £424million,  despite what Peter Doshi the senior editor of the BMJ termed “fragmented, inconsistent and contradictory” data for this global public health drug.

The truth was, they could not even be sure that Tamiflu, a drug known for its harmful effect, even offered an advantage over cheap, over-the-counter drugs such as aspirin and had not been subject to trials comparing it against non-steroidal inflammatory drugs or paracetamol,

Despite the lack of knowledge surrounding its benefits, if any at all, the drug was given regulatory approval through the underpinning clinical trials, the majority of which were sponsored by the manufacturer, and although most of those trials were unpublished, those that were had been ghost-written by writers paid by the manufacturer.

Incredibly, the listed “principal authors” did not even have access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied (1,2,3,4).

However, the FDA did require Tamiflu packaging to carry a warning that the drug could cause hallucinations and delirium in children and teens and that the drug could increase the risk of suicidal thoughts!

We Want Raw Data, Now!

The 2009 editor of the BMJ and also the author of the article “we want raw data now“, Fiona Godlee, acknowledged that there was a legitimate scientific concern that data used for health policy strategies are held only by a commercial organisation had not been subject to full external scrutiny and review.

This resulted in the public relying on academics and journalists to do the detective work “to patch together the evidence for such a widely prescribed drug.” And did not know if the episode would turn into a “decisive battle or merely a skirmish in the fight for greater transparency in drug evaluation.”

Peter Doshi, admitted that “Progress was made, but clearly not enough”[…]  “Individual patient data from all trials of drugs should be readily available for scientific scrutiny” (source). Déjà vu?

We Want Raw Data, Now, Again!

Well fast forward to 2022 and still, data from all trials are not readily available, despite individuals being harmed by a jab that has denied this scientific scrutiny, so what happened?

Consequently, we are still fighting that battle, and we can now tell Fiona Godlee that what they experienced in 2009, was in fact a “skirmish” as we are still fighting that battle.

Why Are We Waiting?

Pfizer – completion date is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15th May 2023 (NCT04368728), but Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, which is a whole 24 months after the supposed completion date of the primary study.

Moderna says data “may be available … with the publication of the final study results in 2022” (source). Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT04470427).

AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials as of 31 December 2021 (source)  However, actually obtaining data could take time as its website explains, “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.” (Source).

So, despite the global rollout of covid-19 jabs, the 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 (source). 

The Snake  

“This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions, said Doshi last week in a BMJ editorial, “Memories are short […] “The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated”.

Consequently, the BMJ is reiterating that call again and has said. “Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions”.

So, what happened in the last 12 years? Why was the public not alerted to the bias and conflicts of interest that were known to those in the field of research in an attempt to prevent mass uptake? Were the pharmaceutical companies thought to have changed?

It reminds me of the lyrics of the Snake, written by civil rights activist Oliver Brown in 1963. “You, knew damn well I was a snake!”

The “snake” of course, is big pharma, the “commercial organisation” that Godlee speaks of, a business that is in the business of profit maximisation for their shareholders and is reaping huge, profits.

The Business of Business

Pharma company Pfizer expected to earn up to US$26 billion (£18 billion) during 2021 alone from the sale of its COVID-19 vaccine. Similarly, Moderna expected to make US$18.4 billion (£13 billion), making its first-ever profit (source).

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, who wrote The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, in the New York Times in 1970, famously said that “the business of business is business”. The business of business is not our health.

Although others disagree and argue that businesses should also work in a “socially responsible manner”, arguably in a real pandemic, that would mean the pharma companies would share their entire data if it were to save lives,

Yet, Pfizer who funded their own clinical trials which were also designed, run, and analysed by them, authored by their own employees, and held all the data from the trials (source) are now reluctant to share this data for fear of revealing “trade secrets”. in a very “business-like” manner.

9 New Pharma Billionaires

In fact, so business-like is the pharma companies that the COVID jabs have also managed to create at least 9 new billionaires after shares in companies producing the jabs soared.

The new billionaires include Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and Uğur Şahin, the CEO of BioNTech (BNTX), which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer (PFE). Both CEOs are now worth around $4 billion, according to an analysis by The People’s Vaccine Alliance,

Wealth Before Health

Clearly, not enough has been done since 2009 to prevent a drug cartel from pushing their product which has not been subject to full scrutiny and external review.

Data to inform the public of the potential harm of the jabs is only going to be available after administering it to everyone who is willing to have it no intervention to stop the laissez-faire promotion, marketing, and subsequent coercion of the pharma products,

Profit-making corporations, who serve one master, that of their shareholders, should not be in any way involved in “health” interventions.

It is, therefore, evident that it is the responsibility of the individuals themselves to stop being the demand to the pharma industry supply. Amazingly, people who would inspect ingredients and check reviews of the oil they put in their car, allowed the already known to be untrustworthy pharmaceutical industry to inject them with an unknown, experimental substance.

Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wrote “People will, in fact, have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda and brainwashing or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods and this seems to be the final revolution”

We can only hope that now that Pfizer has sought emergency authorization from the FDA for the COVID jabs to be used for children between six months to four years of age, the people will stop them in their tracks!