COVIDGATE (Part Two): Clinical Trials and Crusader Bias
Participants in Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can’t stop blabbing. The media is overflowing with testimonials explaining “Why I Volunteered” or “What It Was Like To Participate In The Clinical Trial For Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Loudmouth Molly Jong-Fast publicly begged for beatification:
“Call Me the Joan of Arc of Coronavirus Vaccine Trials,” Jong-Fast’s ode to herself in The New York Times implored.
A striking number of advocacy journalists milked their status as clinical trial enrollees, including Washington Post staffer Walter Isaacson, CNN affiliate anchor Dawn Baker, USA Today writers Jackie Hajdenberg and Lindy Washburn, BBC science journalist Richard Fisher, Reuters writer Steve Stecklow and John Yang of the “PBS Newshour.”
They describe their experiences in emotional terms — “empowering,” “making history” and “a miracle for genetic medicine.” Most did not bother to hide their pro-Big Pharma perspectives.
Given their breaches of journalistic neutrality, it’s hard to imagine they were able to contain themselves at the lab, either. They downplayed vaccine side effects and promoted universal immunization. Jong-Fast wrote that a doctor involved in her trial divulged to her that “people had so few symptoms that they thought they were in the placebo arm of the study.”
The flood of public comments from these zealous media cheerleaders and other clinical trial volunteers who’ve posted online raises alarming questions about the integrity of the clinical trial process. Pfizer and Moderna’s phase III clinical trials are randomized and placebo-controlled, meaning each person has an equal chance of receiving the vaccine or a placebo.
The studies are also supposed to be “double-blind,” meaning that neither the volunteers nor the clinical trial investigators knew which group received which shots (although the administrators of the shots know who’s getting what).
Blinding prevents patients’ beliefs about the treatment from influencing the outcome of the study and also prevents investigators from inadvertently revealing clues about which treatment the subjects are receiving. But scores of comments on Twitter and Facebook from trial volunteers have exposed a phenomenon I call “crusader bias” that should trouble any adherent of good science.
I will be submitting all of my findings to the FDA this week as public comments in advance of the Dec. 10 hearing on the Pfizer COVID vaccine.
Dozens of self-identified Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine volunteers joined a private Facebook group originally dedicated to discussing Moderna investments this year to dish about their experiences. I obtained screenshots that showed volunteers discussing antibody test results they got on their own from commercial labs while the trials are still ongoing.
They are trading information on how to get antibody tests, sharing their symptoms and plotting how to drop out of their trials and enroll in new ones if they suspect they didn’t get the vaccine.
Among the clinical trial volunteers’ gossipy disclosures, many of which threaten the integrity of the blinding procedure in the still-ongoing trials:
–One woman, K.C., told the Facebook group that her shot during the Pfizer vaccine trial “was covered in a bunch of tape, but the part I could see was dark.” A man, T.R., responded by posting a picture of his vial, partially covered in tape with a dark liquid visible. “They made me turn my head, but I got a peek,” K.C. told T.R.
–Another volunteer, J.D.T., said that “someone working at study site” told him “the placebo and the vaccine are different colors.”
–Two participants discussed being able to guess if they got the vaccine based on whether the administrator rushed into the room to inject volunteers. “The vaccine has to remain at a certain temp so once ready, it has to go. Pays to ask a lot of questions,” one advised the other.
–N.K.D., a woman identifying herself as a pathologist who works “at a private lab” told her fellow volunteers that she tested “negative right before the first dose” during a Moderna clinical trial and negative “two weeks after first dose.” She shared information on how to get antibody rapid testing done and offered to do them at her lab in Little Rock.
–When one volunteer expressed her concern that antibody testing was “kind of ‘cheating'” and “against the rules of the study,” another argued “My trial site said go for it. There is nothing in the legal documentation that says you cannot.”
–“Screw it,” said another volunteer who initially worried about jeopardizing his clinical trial’s scientific integrity. “I’m jumping on board and taking an antibody test.”
On Twitter, Icahn School of Medicine microbiology professor and clinical trial volunteer Benjamin tenOever boasted that he had “two adverse-free shots and ‘sky high’ antibody levels after four weeks.”
He said he paid for the antibody test from a commercial lab facility, presumably not part of the still-ongoing clinical trial. He gloated: “The future is bright. Thank you @Pfizer.”
Swedish infectious disease physician and European medicines regulator Rebecca Chandler responded bluntly:
“This is ethically concerning.”
Indeed. The science on COVID-19 testing and vaccine trials is not “settled.” It’s unsettling in the extreme.
About the author: Michelle Malkin is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, author and businesswoman. Her weekly syndicated column appears in a number of newspapers and websites. She was a Fox News contributor and has been a guest on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and national radio programs. Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected].
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
JaKo
| #
Hi,
What I found really disturbing were my “thoughts” provoked by the quotes: “empowering,” “making history” and “a miracle for genetic medicine.”
That is, if one’s fully woke, as all “presstutues” (thank you Dr. Roberts) are, then this “miracle for genetic medicine” could reverse their predispositions! Can you imagine a CNN or, better yet, a BBC “journalist-vaccine-volunteer-turned-libertarian” calling Dr. Paul with a brilliant contribution for “Institute For Peace and Prosperity” website? 😉
OTOH, it is hard for me to contemplate anything tragic as a consequence of vaccination; yet, if there were the “anticipated N% of collateral damage,” who would, kinda, had it coming — you / I, who had to be restrained to get their jab, or someone gloating in defiance of all sense and moral restrains during the “scientific trials?” What would lift my spirit — the vaccine will amplify the preexisting “wokeness,” in sense of the famous Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis…
Ouch, JaKo
Reply
Tom O
| #
You said – “hard for me to contemplate anything tragic as a consequence of vaccination;.” There are a lot of people out there that would disagree with you from personal experience.
But more to the point, why would anyone want to take a vaccination that only causes the body to produce certain antibodies but doesn’t necessarily prevent a disease? How do you protect yourself from a virus that has yet to be identified and isolated, although we have research project after research project telling us how long it survives on toilet seats, wash basins, bank notes, etc.? How would anyone KNOW it survived if they never isolated it to know what they are looking for?
Until there is actual proof that there is a virus that we need to take a vaccine for, WHY would any sane person take it, authorize their child to have it, or want anyone else to take a vaccine that no one knows, really, what it does?
My understanding of the immune system is that it does have limited resources, so to speak, to use when fighting a disease. At some point, as its resources become used up, it releases the destructive cytokine attack that has taken too many people’s lives. And here we have a vaccine that is going to alter cells to force the immune system to create antibodies.
How many cells do this, and for how long? Do they ever stop producing whatever it is that is causing the flood of antibodies, and does this exhaust the resources of the immune system, leaving it on short supply, so to speak, as it battles a real infection before the cytokine swarms that destroys tissues and takes lives are released? Does this really make sense?
Reply