29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 03:42 pm
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2022/12/covid-whistleblower-lawsuit-pfizer/

Brook Jackson knew things were wrong immediately after being hired in late 2020 by Ventavia Research Group. Her job was to oversee its clinical trial of Pfizer’s not-yet-approved COVID-19 v*ccine. She repeatedly told company officials of the breaches in protocol and other actions that compromised the study, but her protests were ignored.

“I recognized fraud right away,” Brook said. “The staff at the company were forging patient consent forms. They were enrolling their own employees and family members in the study and allowing them to choose to get the actual v*ccine, not the placebo. When the trials were supposed to be blinded, the company I worked for unblinded them.”

Blowing the Whistle
Just 18 days after starting her new job, Brook called the Food and Drug Administration to tell them about those incorrect actions leading to the study’s unblinding. Hours later, while working from home that day, she was fired by Ventavia, ostensibly because she wasn’t the “right fit.”
“I’ve never been fired in my life,” said Brook, who’s been working in clinical research for 20 years.

At Ventavia, her job was to manage the daily operations of the Ventavia COVID-19 study, which involved 1,500 study participants. Right away, she found company officials were violating local, state, and federal laws and not putting patients’ interests ahead of making money.

The gold standard for clinical trials is for there to be blinding. This means participants do not know certain information about the trial—like whether they’re receiving the real treatment or placebo—and this reduces bias and the placebo effect. Unblinding trials effectively renders them useless, Brook noted. Such breaches of protocol also compromise patient treatments and patient safety.

“If I’m your doctor and you’re in a study and I know you got the v*ccine and you call me and say you have COVID symptoms, they use having had the vax as a default to rule out the possibility of you having COVID,” she said. “It injects a bias into the trial.”

Pfizer’s own protocol dictates that if there’s a potential for unblinding, the company controlling the trials should pause them and contact Pfizer, Brook explains. “Instead of reporting the potential unblinding, [Ventavia officials] sent a text message to the directors in the company to have them locate the info and destroy evidence of unblinding. … If Pfizer called Ventavia, we were told to tell Pfizer that all was fine and that we were just running behind schedule.”
But Brook’s findings regarding the trials so concerned her that in September 2020 she reported 14 findings she discovered in the Ventavia trials to the FDA.
“Six hours later my company called and fired me,” she said, adding that she was surprised to be fired the way she was.

“For 18 days I was telling them everything they were doing wrong. I spent my entire career making sure that the data in clinical trials was backed by good data,” Brook said.

The realization that her industry has been corrupted for a long time has been sobering for Brook. And she explains that over her life she has not been opposed to v*ccines. “I’m not anti-vax,” she said. “I’m typically someone who would get the v*ccine.”

“It’s been very difficult for me to be the age I am and realize what the past 20 years of my life have been. I feel lost, I feel betrayed,” she said.

Brook’s Lawsuit
In December 2020 when Pfizer was given the emergency use authorization for the v*ccine by the U.S. government, Brook realized they’d used the Ventavia data she’d flagged as compromised. Now she’s suing for $1.9 billion on behalf of those injured by the v*ccine.

“I filed the lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. and its citizens because I know Pfizer used fraudulent data from those clinical trials to get the v*ccine approved,” said Brook. “They shouldn’t have used the data from Ventavia to show the v*ccine was effective or safe. Pfizer and the FDA ignored me in that they knew this fraudulent info was being used. They were in a rush to get this v*ccine out and they wanted to be the first to market.”

Being from a military family, Brook has a deep love of her country. She believes integrity is important, and that’s why she couldn’t ignore the disregard for protocol, unblinding and dismissal of patients’ adverse COVID-19 vax reactions.
“I knew this v*ccine would be used throughout the world, and I wanted it to be effective and work and help people. … They weren’t even recording the adverse reactions that were being reported by patients. They were crapping all over procedures and protocols for a buck, and I couldn’t be quiet about that,” she said.

These days, we know the v*ccines aren’t effective in preventing people from getting COVID and that the vax is causing myocarditis in men, she noted. “People who are being injured by the v*ccine need to know how these trials were compromised,” she said.

The named parties in the lawsuit, including ICON, Pfizer, and Ventavia, all made motions to dismiss. In October 2022, the government supported Pfizer in the lawsuit, with a statement of interest saying the case should be dismissed due to the totality of the evidence.

“They’re saying that because the trials I reported on were just 3% of the trials’ total 44,000 enrollees, that number is so small it’s insignificant,” Brook said. “Of that 44,000, only 170 patients developed COVID after getting the vax. And of that 170, they’re saying that 162 were in the placebo group, [so] eight were in the vaccinated group—that’s how they got 95% safe and effective.”
Part of the problem Brook faces in her lawsuit is not just the intransigence of government officials but also their stupidity. The Department of Justice doesn’t understand how clinical trials should be run, she noted.

“Of the 170 patients who tested positive for COVID in the Pfizer clinical trials, four of them were from Ventavia’s clinical trial sites. But 40 were from a site in Argentina that’s currently undergoing an international investigation for fraud in the trials there,” Brook said. “There’s no accountability—none.”
Brook believes the mRNA platform that was used to develop the COVID-19 v*ccines is being wrongly portrayed as an acceptable way to develop medicines to treat various illnesses.

“So now, all of a sudden mRNA is a platform to bring these previously failed v*ccines forward. … It’s scary,” she said.

After being fired by Ventavia, it took Brook a year to find another job. But when people learned of her lawsuit, strange things started happening to her. She’d lose connectivity on her computer, hear crackling sounds while talking on the phone, had a box of crickets set on her doorstep, and got an already-opened letter from the Department of Justice in her mailbox (the letter was a notice declining part of her lawsuit).

Heart-Wrenching and Uplifting Moments
At a roundtable discussion for v*ccine-injured advocates in November 2021 organized by Senator Ron Johnson, the testimonies transformed Brook.
“As I listened to the v*ccine injured tell their stories, it changed me and my life forever in ways I can’t explain,” Brook said. “I am from a military family, and I still want to believe in my country. You have these codes and regulations, and they must be followed.”

Reading about or even hearing over the phone the heartbreaking stories of v*ccine-injured people with debilitating neurological symptoms, heart problems, and more is bound to make anyone empathize with those folks. It’s another thing entirely to see the v*ccine injured give their testimonies in person.
One woman approached Brook at an event, and the meeting left an impression on Brook. “She wheeled over in her wheelchair, and I reached down to give her a hug, and she wanted to stand up and hug me,” Brook said. “And she asked me to never stop fighting for v*ccine-injured people.”
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 05:32 pm
Interesting predictions by Medvedev on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/medvedevrussiae/status/1607487342549286914?s=46&t=Aun1c3YIY2BBYx4FbkKqEA
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 05:49 pm
Brook Jackson, The COVID-19 Pfizer Whistleblower?
November 28, 2022

Today, the COVID-19 pandemic is not a leading story. However, what is making waves is a whistleblower by the name of Brook Jackson. She claims that back in September 2020, when she was hired to oversee the testing of a COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer, criminal fraud occurred, allowing the vaccine to be FDA-approved.

What criminal fraud was committed? That is a great question, as we couldn't find anything mentioned in the lawsuit that could be deemed criminal fraud.

However, in the research we have conducted, there are massive holes in Ms. Jackson's claims, and while there are issues with mishandling the mishandling of biohazard materials during the testing process, that in no way constitutes a data integrity breach, as Ms. Jackson claims.

You might find the issues brought up by Professor Dorit Rubenstein Reiss of the University of California Hastings College of Law quite interesting. Do you think that Reiss has created massive holes in the claims stated by Ms. Jackson? These holes have not been addressed by Jackson or her legal team, as far as we can tell. You can read them here.

Others have wondered why did Ms. Jackson go to BMJ.com to break the story, a UK company, instead of one in the US? Was there no media outlet willing to break the story because they felt it lacked real evidence?

The Key Players

Pfizer - the manufacturer of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and on August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the vaccine as safe and effective in the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 12 years of age or older. The vaccine is currently marketed under the name Comirnaty. The FDA ruled there was no problem with the data submitted and no criminal fraud committed.

Ventavia Research Group (VRG) - The independent lab which conducted the testing of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. According to their website, they have eight locations in the state of Texas: Houston, Fort Worth, Plano, Arlington, Keller, Burleson, Weatherford, and Grapevine. They have just under 100 employees and have been performing clinical trial research since 2013.

The FDA has not taken any action against Ventavia and fully accepted the data from the vaccine testing which was performed at Ventavia facilities. Wouldn't it make sense if there was an actual problem that the FDA would have taken action? But they didn't.

Brook Jackson - Known as The COVID-19 Pfizer Whistleblower who reported her findings to the FDA on September 25, 2020. Jackson states she has audio recordings and copies of company documents backing up her claims about how the vaccine trial was conducted by VRG.

One photo allegedly shows needles used in the vaccine trial discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of the approved sharps container box. It is unclear if the needles were poking through the plastic bag creating a potential injury to anyone who was near the bag. Another photo shows the potential of unblinding the participants as the completed vaccine packing materials contained the trial participants' identification numbers, which were out in the open instead of in a secured location.

Does this sound like criminal fraud to you? Lack of training, yes. Overworked employees made mistakes they shouldn't have, probably.

Paul Thacker - the reporter responsible for breaking the story, is described as an American journalist who has reported on science, medicine, and the environment. He has just 16k followers on Twitter. Does that seem like a lot to you?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - the government entity in charge of ensuring the food sold to the public, as well as the drugs created to better our health, are created in the best manner possible, and they do what they should do. The FDA took zero action against Pfizer or Ventavia Research Group (VRG).

Jackson claims she had repeatedly informed her superiors at Ventavia Research Group of problems due to substandard laboratory management, ongoing patient safety concerns (the trial participants), and key data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial. She also brought to their attention the VRG's poor record-keeping, the unblinding of trial volunteers and staff, and the hiring of unqualified personnel. Most seriously, she noted the “improperly diluting” of the vaccine and the failure to keep the vaccines at the recommended temperature.

What is The Federal False Claims Act?
Simply put, the Federal False Claims Act is the #1 way the United States Federal Government fights fraud. It is powerful as it allows whistleblowers to the people involved in the fraud.

What is a Whistleblower Lawsuit?
This allows for a whistleblower to sue not just the company behind the fraud but individuals who were responsible for carrying out the fraud. This holds those accountable for serious wrongdoing.

What is Qui Tam?
Essentially, it allows for the person responsible for informing the government of the wrongdoing (the whistleblower) to receive a portion of the money recovered from the guilty party.

https://www.businessandleadership.com/health/item/brook-jackson-the-covid-19-whistleblower/
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 05:54 pm
Brook Jackson False Claims lawsuit against Ventavia COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial

This article about the Brook Jackson lawsuit claiming false payment claims for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about vaccination’s social and legal policies. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.

Brook Jackson worked as an operator of three of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials sites for 18 days. Based on what she saw, she brought suit against the operator – Ventavia, the company that hired clinical trials site operators, ICON PLC., and Pfizer in the name of the United States under the False Claims Act. Jackson’s lawsuit claims, if true, may show that Ventavia had many issues in running the trial.

But they do not show fraud in relation to claims of payment from the federal government, which is the heart of a False Claims claim, and that alone should probably lead to her lawsuit being dismissed. The False Claims Act is not a catch-all tool for violation of FDA regulations.

Again, even if true, they do not show a problem with Pfizer’s vaccine, a vaccine for which there is now extensive independent data on safety and effectiveness.

Contents

0.1 The Brook Jackson case
0.2 The False Claims Act and Ms. Jackson’s case
0.3 Claims by the attorney for Brook Jackson
0.4 Breaking of the Seal
0.5 So what now?

The Brook Jackson case
From the materials in the litigation, Brook Jackson was hired by Ventavia. This company describes itself as “a leading clinical research firm, specializing in trials of pediatric, maternal, and adult vaccines and other medicines,” as a regional director. Jackson worked for Ventavia for 18 days, and then was fired, and unsurprisingly, there are conflicting claims about why she was fired.

Jackson, in her complaint, presents herself as immediately noticing serious problems with Ventavia’s management of the clinical trial, and alerting her superiors to those issues. She implies that she was fired because of her efforts to correct such violations. She also suggests that she was fired because she reported the violations to FDA, though there’s no indication that at the time she was fired, the company knew that she did that.

Brook Jackson says, in her complaint:

On the following morning, Relator called the FDA’s hotline to report the clinical trial protocol violations and patient safety concerns she witnessed. Relator was terminated from her position at Ventavia that same day—September 25, 2020—under the pretext that she was “not a good fit.” Relator had never been formally disciplined or reported for any failure regarding her job performance.


I think this strongly implies that the call to the FDA was the reason for the termination.

On the other hand, Ventavia claims that Jackson “came with an agenda,” violated company policy and patient privacy, and unblinded herself and others from participants in the clinical trials. It concludes: “Relator was fired for violating company policy and patient confidentiality.”

It’s certainly possible that the company fired Ms. Jackson for causing waves and pointing out real issues. It’s also possible that the company fired Ms. Jackson for violating rules and policies and ignoring patient privacy. At this point, I do not know. What is clear is that Ms. Jackson and Ventavia are unfriendly towards each other. That does not, of course, mean that what Ms. Jackson says is not true.

On January 8, 2021, Ms. Jackson filed her claim under the False Claim Act. I will discuss the act and its requirements below, but in essence, Ms. Jackson’s complaint is almost completely a recitation of alleged violations of the trial protocol by Ventavia. Ms. Jackson alleges that Ventavia enrolled subjects that should not have been enrolled, and mentions two types of subjects – family members of employees, and pregnant women.

She also alleges that Ventavia was not careful about blinding and engaged in practices that unblinded the participants to trial personnel. She alleges that Ventavia’s recording practices were shoddy and even fraudulent, with changes made inappropriately. She alleges other instances of carelessness, for example in keeping the vaccines at the right temperature or in disposing of materials. If we take Ms. Jackson’s claims as true – a big if – the picture we arrive at is of two very sloppily managed trial sites (the two she observed).

Some of the claims also sound like disagreements rather than actual violations – for example, Ms. Jackson mentioned that patients were put in the hallways and “checked on” as monitoring, and there seems to have been actual disagreements between Jackson and her superiors on whether that was enough to count as monitoring.

We should be careful about accepting her claims, of course — this is a dismissed employee, and Ventavia strongly denies at least some of her claims. For example, Ventavia alleges that the lack of blinding was actually due to the actions of the employee who entered without permission closed-off areas she was not allowed to enter, took pictures of documents that were locked and not to be public with her personal phone, and engaged in other violations that could compromise blinding.

That does not mean Ms. Jackson was necessarily lying or even wrong — Ventavia has every interest to blacken her name and may have violated protocols. But it does mean that at this early stage, her allegations need to be approached with care.

We just do not have enough information at this point to know what is going on with the specific allegations, and both parties should be approached with care. One of the criticisms of a problematic article about the claims Ms. Jackson’s made was accepting her claims at face value, without giving any weight – indeed, maybe not even soliciting – responses from the companies she accused.

What is clear is that even if Ms. Jackson’s allegations are true, her lawsuit likely cannot meet the legal requirements of a False Claims Act lawsuit, or retaliation under it. Further, even if her allegations are true, the next conclusion she tries to draw from them doesn’t hold. Brook Jackson argues, in her complaint, that:

Due to Defendants’ scheme, millions of Americans have received a misbranded vaccination which is potentially not as effective as represented. The vaccine’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authorization resulted from a deeply flawed clinical trial that violated FDA regulations. Defendants have profited from the COVID-19 pandemic at the expense of the United States and its citizens by abusing the scientific process.

The lawsuit’s allegations simply do not support that. Ms. Jackson alleges regulatory violations on two trial sites that cover 1500 people out of over 40,000. Even if her claims could raise issues about safety and effectiveness – a very big if, and some of the alleged violations (like not properly disposing of needles) are not even related to the clinical trial – they would apply to a small fraction of trial participants, and by no means negate the results of the trials.

Going from there to a claim that the authorization was based on a “deeply flawed clinical trial” is taking a very, very big step that the complaint does not support.

Further, this is no longer January 2021. We have extensive real-world data about Pfizer’s vaccines from hundreds of millions of doses given in the United States and literally billions around the world, and neither Ventavia nor Pfizer can actually control that data. Even if the complaint gave good grounds to doubt the safety and effectiveness data overall – and I do not think it does – it would not show a problem with the authorization or approval given the other data. Trying to use this complaint to argue against authorization and approval generally is simply unconvincing.

The False Claims Act and Ms. Jackson’s case
The False Claims Act goes back to the 19th century, though its current form is much changed from the original act. At its core, it allows a private individual to bring a lawsuit in the name of the United States government against a false claim – a fraudulent demand for payment – to the government and allows the private party to collect up to 30% of the payment.

Ms. Jackson brought claims under two provisions of the False Claims Act, codified in 31 U.S.C. §3729 (1)(A) and (B). These sections allow claims against anyone who –

(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

In essence, she would have to show that the companies (legal people) she’s suing:

Submitted a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, or made a false record “material” to such a claim. Claims can be false factually or legally. False legal claims either expressly say that the submitter complied with regulations or strongly imply it.
That the claim or record was “material” – whether they induced, or contributed to, the payment or approval.
Either that there is a false record supporting the claim, or “falsity, causation, knowledge, and materiality.” The people sued need to “know, deliberately ignore, or recklessly disregard the falsity of their claim.”
The problem Ms. Jackson’s claims face going in is that it’s not clear she has anything to support the elements of the act. Brook Jackson is suing three companies. Ventavia did not submit any payments to the government, so Ms. Jackson would likely try to use prong (B) – making a false record in support of a claim for payment.

But even there, she would have to show that a false claim for payment was submitted to the government, or a false approval or authorization. For Pfizer, she would run into the problem that her complaint nowhere alleges Pfizer submitted a false claim. She claims Pfizer should have “constructive knowledge” of some of the problems she runs into, but she doesn’t actually connect anything Pfizer did to a false claim.

As pointed out by the motions to dismiss of both Pfizer and Ventavia, the False Claims Act is not there to address general regulatory violations by companies. It is there to address false claims for payment or authorization. In this case, the false claims for payment Ms. Jackson is alleging is that Pfizer got paid for vaccine doses by the United States Department of Defense. But not only did she not show misrepresentation on Pfizer’s part based on the regulatory violations she pointed to, but as Pfizer pointed out, its invoices did not say anything about regulatory compliance: all they were saying was that they are submitting a certain number of doses.

Ms. Jackson could try to call this out based on the fact that a condition of the Department of Defense purchasing was FDA authorization or approval. If that was based on fraud, she would allege, that the payment was based on fraud, too. But there are several problems here, too. The less severe one is that not all regulatory violations are also a fraud, but Ms. Jackson is claiming fraud, even if her complaint is scant on details for it.

More serious is the fact that Ms. Jackson is trying to claim the government was defrauded while, as both Pfizer and Ventavia pointed out, the FDA and the Department of Defense are pretty sure they were not defrauded. First, Ms. Jackson herself sent her claim to both FDA and the Department of Defense, so the government knew of the claims before authorizing – or paying – for the vaccines.

The FDA email was on September 25, 2020, before authorization. The letter to the Department of Defense was from December 14, 2020, before doses were provided to people. If the government knew of the allegations, where is the fraud?

The essence of fraud is that a party tricked someone else, making them think the reality is not as it is. You cannot trick someone who actually knows the facts. FDA also said openly that it does not think that it was defrauded – even knowing of Ms. Jackson’s claims. In response to her claim, a spokesperson for FDA said:

Although the agency cannot comment further at this time in this ongoing matter, FDA has full confidence in the data that were used to support the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine authorization and the Comirnaty approval.

The Department of Defense, too, continued to buy Pfizer’s vaccines. This is not surprising: again, even if everything Ms. Jackson’s said was correct, and even if Ventavia has at no point improved its practices, Ventavia handled only 1,500 people out of 43,000 trial participants. And since then, many external studies examined the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. FDA is on solid ground in continuing the authorization and licensing of Pfizer’s vaccine – and in line with expert agencies from all around the world.

If the authorization and licensing is not fraudulent, and the purchase based on it is not fraudulent, where is the false claims act? Again, even if we assume that Brook Jackson showed real regulatory violations, the False Claims Act is not one of the FDA’s enforcement mechanisms. If there’s no fraud against the government, there’s no false claims act.

I could stop here, but I want to address two additional issues:

Claims that were made by Ms. Jackson’s current lawyer about the case.
Ms. Jackson’s failure to abide by the seal on the case.
two covid vials on pink surface

Claims by the attorney for Brook Jackson
At some point during the case, Ms. Jackson replaced her initial lawyers from the law firm of Berg and Androphy with attorney Robert Barnes. In a video shared on Rumble by anti-vaccine activist Steve Kirsch, Mr. Barnes claimed that Pfizer’s motion to dismiss their grounds for dismissal is:

…that it doesn’t matter if they submitted fraudulent certifications to the government, it doesn’t matter if they submitted false statements under penalty of perjury to the government. It doesn’t matter if they lied about the safety and efficacy of these drugs mislabeled in my opinion as vaccines. Because the government was in with them on it. The government knows what’s going on and the government still has given them the check anyway. Was it really fraud if the government is their co-conspirator? That is in essence Pfizer’s defense to the case.

A few things about this. First, by trying to claim Pfizer’s vaccine is not a vaccine, Mr. Barnes puts himself strongly in the anti-vaccine camp. Second, this is a serious misrepresentation of Pfizer’s position.

Here is Pfizer’s motion to dismiss. Note that in no place does Pfizer say it committed fraud. In fact, Pfizer says it did not. First, as a technical point, Pfizer points out that their invoices to the Department of Defense did not include – and were not required to include – a certification of compliance with the regulations. Pfizer says: “Pfizer’s invoices do not contain certifications of compliance with FAR or any other federal regulations. Pfizer instead certified, in a more limited way, that “the amounts invoiced [were] for costs incurred in accordance with the agreement, the work reflected ha[d] been performed, and prior payment ha[d] not been received.” This certification is a truthful one, and it has nothing to do with the regulatory provisions cited in Relator’s complaint”. The “relator” is the term used for a citizen bringing a false claims act on the government’s behalf.

Second, Pfizer points out that “[t]he Government has also clearly rejected Relator’s allegations by issuing a recent public statement expressing “full confidence” in the data supporting authorization and approval of Pfizer’s product.” In other words, far from accepting that Ms. Jackson shows fraud, Pfizer is saying that FDA agrees that Ms. Jackson did not. FDA does not have to accept Ms. Jackson’s claims of problems. And even if they accepted her claims, they do not have to go from regulatory violations to saying that they were frauds. Here, they did not. FDA’s response suggests not that they’re conspiring with Pfizer, but that they do not think that there was a fraud.

Third, Mr. Barnes’ claims are also misleading on the law. The core of the False Claims Act is that the citizen is bringing a claim on behalf of the government to recoup money the government was defrauded of. In fact, 70% of any recouping would go to the government and only 30% to the citizen. If the government claims “we were not misled”, there is no such fraud. The government is not a co-conspirator in that case; the payment claim was simply not a fraud.

In essence, Mr. Barnes is misrepresenting Pfizer’s response that “we did not mislead the government, among other things because the government knows of Ms. Jackson’s claims and does not think it paid on a fraud” as saying something very different. Mr. Barnes, as a lawyer suing under the act, should know this.

Breaking of the Seal
Claims brought under the False Claims Act are sealed for at least 60 days to allow the government to decide if to take the claim over, and that period can be extended.

In this case, the case was filed in January 2021. The government decided not to intervene on January 18, 2022. The case was unsealed on February 10, 2022. But on January 17, 2022, Ms. Jackson Tweeted the complaint’s front page and several claims from it. Even before that, in November 2021 the BMJ published an article by a free-lance journalist based on the claims of the complaint. As part of its motion to dismiss, Ventavia pointed to this violation of the seal requirement, and to cases showing dismissal of claims because of similar violations of seal.

Similarly, Pfizer requested staying even partial discovery in part because it pointed out that Brook Jackson cannot be relied upon to respect the confidentiality of documents, even if she promises to do so, based on this.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it had taken over a year – not sixty days – for the government to respond and say they will not intervene in the case. That’s a long time to keep a complaint under seal, and it seems tricky to force litigants to wait.

On the other hand, false claim act claims are not usual claims. They are mechanisms for citizens to bring claims against the government, and the claim really is in the name of the government. Brook Jackson did not bring a personal wrongful dismissal claim (though she did include a retaliation claim against Ventavia), she is bringing a claim for false payment to the government. And when she’s doing that, she should respect the rules of the game – and yes, it does raise questions, since she ignored the sealing requirements here, whether she will respect any confidentiality requirements going forward.

So what now?
Before the court now are the complaints and the motion to dismiss. The court set a schedule for hearing them. The court partly “granted” Pfizer’s request to stay discovery but I’m not quite sure what it means. The court referred to an earlier order that did allow limited discovery as needed for the motions to dismiss.

Although the court did set trial dates, that does not mean they will happen – the next step really is litigating the motion to dismiss. In my view, Ms. Jackson’s claim is highly problematic and very likely to be dismissed, but it will be months before it is resolved. In the meantime, it can be misused to generate an anti-vaccine talking point. I hope this post can help with that.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/brook-jackson-false-claims-lawsuit-against-ventavia-covid-19-vaccine-clinical-trial/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 07:41 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Ok, not exactly a Christmas story but it beats the hell out of being called overfed, greedy fascists by someone who has no idea what her own government is actually doing because she rather believes what our enemies have told her about her evil masters.

Taliban types are always most passionate in their hatreds.

So right!
How many threads here are based on nothing but sheer hatred about Trump and Trumpsters and other non conformists??

This place truly is driven by a uniform hatred of that man and any who vote for him—or who criticize their sacred anti-Trump crowd. Vilification really has begin to completely define ‘Democrats’. No more union support. No more taking care of the poor, the elderly. Just hate. The mocking, rudeness, and accusations against the few members who don’t march in lockstep with Blatham and his crew definitely border on Taliban-style hatred, mirroring the failing, corrupt Democrat party.


I don't see eye to eye with Lash on a lot, but she hit the nail squarely on the head here. I'd also like my thumbs down on my post. It just shows how correct she is with this.
coluber2001
 
  2  
Mon 26 Dec, 2022 08:11 pm
I think Trump eventually will be indicted and tried. I used to think he could never be convicted, but in the documents case the evidence is so strong, he may very well be convicted. But I don't think he'll spend a day in jail after he's convicted. I think he'll appeal immediately and then eventually escape to country without an extradition treaty.

It won't be Ukraine for sure, but it could be Russia. Trump has no allegiance to The United States, except maybe the United States of Trump.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 05:32 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
I don't see eye to eye with Lash on a lot...

No one does – that doesn't suddenly make you believable.
Quote:
...but she hit the nail squarely on the head here.

More like she hit her own thumb.
Quote:
I'd also like my thumbs down on my post.

You can thumb down your post all you want – it won't enhance your credibility.
Quote:
It just shows how correct she is with this.

It doesn't show anything of the kind. It only shows that people disagree with your post, think your post is badly written, or that they just don't like you.

Apparently the OP can't even find an example of what she means, even with seventeen pages of Trump-related threads to choose from. Maybe you can help her out here – find one thread "based on nothing but sheer hatred about Trump and Trumpsters and other non conformists??" I thought I'd found one – then I realized it was about someone else!
izzythepush
 
  4  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 05:37 am
@hightor,
These is what Lash's fellow right wingers do, they collude with the great lie.

They say Lash is left wing so they can't agree with her on much, before agreeing with everything she's just said.

Oralloy does it as well.

I don't know why they bother, they're not fooling anyone.

The closest was Edgar and he wasn't really fooled, he just gave her the benefit of the doubt, because he's nice.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 05:38 am
Here’s what’s happening in your world.
https://twitter.com/mintpressnews/status/1607445019060834304?s=46&t=B96881IsuhR4LMF-GsLA3w

The de-industrialization of Europe to fight the rise of China.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  6  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 08:16 am
@hightor,
Quote:
"based on nothing but sheer hatred about Trump and Trumpsters and other non conformists??"

What I most like about this sentence you've quoted is the final portion...
"Trumpsters and other non conformists".

Indeed. Whenever I think of neo-Nazis, coup plotters, religious bigots, book banners, gay bashers, anti-Semites, serial liars, pushers of fake health remedies, racists, Jewish space laser theorists and the 'lock her up' screamers the very first descriptive term that comes to mind for this set of people is "non conformists".
Lash
 
  -3  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 10:26 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
"based on nothing but sheer hatred about Trump and Trumpsters and other non conformists??"

What I most like about this sentence you've quoted is the final portion...
"Trumpsters and other non conformists".

Indeed. Whenever I think of neo-Nazis, coup plotters, religious bigots, book banners, gay bashers, anti-Semites, serial liars, pushers of fake health remedies, racists, Jewish space laser theorists and the 'lock her up' screamers the very first descriptive term that comes to mind for this set of people is "non conformists".

Lash wrote:
And there’s the unbridled hatred I referred to earlier.

There are a great many people who either voted for Trump or just didn’t conform to the corrupt Shitlib party you shill for constantly

who are none of those ridiculous hateful terms you just spewed across the screen. Your hatred for everyone who rejects your opinion is on display.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 12:44 pm
https://youtu.be/C-l3NsRCUm0

The Ministry of Truth wants to criminalize speech that challenges their lies.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 03:09 pm
Quote:
And there’s the unbridled hatred I referred to earlier.

No it isn't. I know people who voted for Trump who would not be labeled "Trumpsters" by anyone who had a discussion with them for more than a few minutes. They weren't crazy about Trump – their rather conformist concern was that a Democrat would raise the tax on capital gains. And they certainly weren't neo-Nazis, coup plotters, religious bigots, book banners, gay bashers, anti-Semites, serial liars, pushers of fake health remedies, racists, Jewish space laser theorists or 'lock her up' screamers. Anyone who's voted in a presidential election knows that a candidate might only support one of their pet issues but if it concerns them enough, they'll overlook everything else.

I think the OP, like the McGentrix character, confuses the tone often used to respond to their posts as indicative of a general level of hatefulness and not remembering that this forum is a very small collection of people who have known each other a long time and have come to dislike various personalities, not for their political convictions, but for their obnoxious posting style. I'd very much like to have a serious political discussion without it turning into an insult contest and I've even conducted a few dialogues with the OP where we both remained civil to each other. But being accused of supporting pedophiles or of being a "shitlib" tends to rub some people the wrong way – which, I assume, is intentional. Don't provoke a confrontation and then complain about someone else's hostile manner. I thought people learned this in, like, kindergarten.
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 03:16 pm
The Rand Corporation: Extending Russia

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

Extending Russia
Competing from Advantageous Ground

This report examines a range of possible means to extend Russia. As the 2018 National Defense Strategy recognized, the United States is currently locked in a great-power competition with Russia. This report seeks to define areas where the United States can compete to its own advantage. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from Western and Russian sources, this report examines Russia's economic, political, and military vulnerabilities and anxieties. It then analyzes potential policy options to exploit them — ideologically, economically, geopolitically, and militarily (including air and space, maritime, land, and multidomain options). After describing each measure, this report assesses the associated benefits, costs, and risks, as well as the likelihood that measure could be successfully implemented and actually extend Russia. Most of the steps covered in this report are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counter-escalation. Some of these policies, however, also might prompt adverse reactions from other U.S. adversaries — most notably, China — that could, in turn, stress the United States. Ultimately, this report concludes that the most attractive U.S. policy options to extend Russia — with the greatest benefits, highest likelihood of success, and least risk — are in the economic domain, featuring a combination of boosting U.S. energy production and sanctions, providing the latter are multilateral. In contrast, geopolitical measures to bait Russia into overextending itself and ideological measures to undermine the regime's stability carry significant risks. Finally, many military options — including force posture changes and development of new capabilities — could enhance U.S. deterrence and reassure U.S. allies, but only a few are likely to extend Russia, as Moscow is not seeking parity with the United States in most domains.
———————
Gee, I wonder if the BLUE NO MATTER WHO crowd will admit Biden is running a proxy war with Russia while laundering billions for himself and his criminal buddies while Americans, Ukrainians, and Europeans starve, freeze, and die.

Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 04:17 pm
Rand (con’t)

The most promising measures to stress Russia are in the realms of energy production and international pressure

Continuing to expand U.S. energy production in all forms, including renewables, and encouraging other countries to do the same would maximize pressure on Russia's export receipts and thus on its national and defense budgets. Alone among the many measures looked at in this report, this one comes with the least cost or risk.

Sanctions can also limit Russia's economic potential. To be effective, however, these need to be multilateral, involving (at a minimum) the European Union, which is Russia's largest customer and greatest source of technology and capital, larger in all these respects than the United States.

Geopolitical measures to bait Russia into overextending itself are likely impractical, or they risk second-order consequences
(But, they did it anyway)

Many geopolitical measures would force the United States to operate in areas that are closer to Russia and where it is thus cheaper and easier for Russia than the United States to exert influence.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -4  
Tue 27 Dec, 2022 04:30 pm
@hightor,
Nice try, no dice.

He wasn’t talking about me, your excuse for his hatred.

What I most like about this sentence you've quoted is the final portion...
"Trumpsters and other non conformists".



Indeed. Whenever I think of neo-Nazis, coup plotters, religious bigots, book banners, gay bashers, anti-Semites, serial liars, pushers of fake health remedies, racists, Jewish space laser theorists and the 'lock her up' screamers the very first descriptive term that comes to mind for this set of people is "non conformists".

————————

Set. Of. People.

Nice to see your comfort level lying, though.
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 28 Dec, 2022 06:56 am
Quote:
And there’s the unbridled hatred I referred to earlier.

Note that the OP still hasn't provided examples of these threads.
Quote:
He wasn’t talking about me, your excuse for his hatred.

Note that blatham was clearly discussing the OP's use of language. And that sentence is unclear as the OP has yet to establish that this "hatred" exists. Nor was I "excusing" anything – I was drawing a distinction between political arguments and personal arguments.
Quote:
Nice to see your comfort level lying, though.

This really doesn't make any sense. The post is a nothing burger.
revelette1
 
  3  
Wed 28 Dec, 2022 07:39 am
@hightor,
Quote:
But being accused of supporting pedophiles or of being a "shitlib" tends to rub some people the wrong way – which, I assume, is intentional. Don't provoke a confrontation and then complain about someone else's hostile manner. I thought people learned this in, like, kindergarten.


Exactly the tired old saying, "you can dish it out, but you can't take it" comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Wed 28 Dec, 2022 08:58 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
And there’s the unbridled hatred I referred to earlier.

Note that the OP still hasn't provided examples of these threads.
Quote:
He wasn’t talking about me, your excuse for his hatred.

Note that blatham was clearly discussing the OP's use of language. And that sentence is unclear as the OP has yet to establish that this "hatred" exists. Nor was I "excusing" anything – I was drawing a distinction between political arguments and personal arguments.
Quote:
Nice to see your comfort level lying, though.

This really doesn't make any sense. The post is a nothing burger.

This post is a nothing burger.
revelette1
 
  3  
Wed 28 Dec, 2022 09:16 am
@Lash,
Quote:
This post is a nothing burger.


In other words:

I'm better than you,
na-na, na-na, boo-boo,
stick your head in doo-doo.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 05:55:52