Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
MINUTES MATTER: Fox News contributors weigh in on whether pacemaker data could reveal key moments in the Nancy Guthrie case. Paul Mauro says modern devices may track heart rhythm changes that help narrow timelines, while Josh Ritter notes any such data would likely stay sealed unless presented at trial.
41,321 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
!["Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer...[is] the largest case in the world...there's literally...trillions in potential damages." "The clinical trial data was manipulated...[Pfizer's] vaccine...increased all cause mortality...And...they hid deaths." (1/7) Warner Mendenhall (Warner Mendenhall), an activist, citizen, and lawyer representing Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson (Brook Jackson 💜), describes for Leslie Manookian (Leslie Manookian) of Health Freedom Defense Fund (Health Freedom Defense Fund) how the pharma giant conducted a "manipulated" clinical trial for its COVID injections. Mendenhall notes that Pfizer manipulated its "clinical trial" (which was really a "demonstration" of a clinical trial—see tweet 2), in various ways. First and foremost, by "[hiding] deaths" in the "shot" arm of the trial. Furthermore, Mendenhall notes that more people died in the "shot arm" of Pfizer's trial than in the placebo arm. (Indeed, the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action published by the FDA on November 8, 2021 for Pfizer's *supposedly* FDA approved injection, COMIRNATY, clearly stated that there were 21 deaths in the injection arm of the trial and 17 in the placebo arm—see tweet 5). Also note that while Mendenhall doesn't discuss this point in this clip, Trump's own Department of Justice requested—in 2025(!)—that Jackson's case against Pfizer be dismissed. "Trump sides with Pfizer!" Jackson wrote on X on April 28, 2025. "[Trump's] DOJ explained to the court that it has had continued access to the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial data and the vaccine is effective," Jackson added. Trump's DOJ asked the court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit against Pfizer, in part, because her case is "inconsistent with public policy" (see tweet 5). Furthermore, note that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. himself has called Pfizer's COVID-injection clinical trial "kabuki theater." Kennedy noted in an interview conducted in 2023 that the trial "was meaningless theater." He added that Pfizer's COVID injection "is a demonstration product, not a medical product" and that "the FDA has no authority over it." (See tweet 3.) ---------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "We have a couple of cases that are very well known. Brook Jackson's case against Pfizer I think is the most well known. But it is something that we've had no mainstream coverage of. What could be the largest case in the world right now because there's literally hundreds, of billions, essentially trillions in potential damages that Pfizer would never be able to pay. "They'd be bankrupt if Brook Jackson is, successful in her case. That case is again, it's very simple. The clinical trial data was manipulated to show that this drug, was somewhat effective against COVID 19. They started with 43,000 people in the clinical trial, but the data that the FDA, made a decision on was only based on 170 people out of 43,000. So why, why only 170? "I think anyone would ask if you have 43,000 data points. It's because that came after they went through the data, you know, and basically manipulated it to where it showed a quote unquote 90 or 95% effectiveness rate. But if you go back to a little broader view of the data, you can see, right in the broader view that of the folks who didn't get the vaccine, there were 1800 who got COVID-19. "Of the folks who did get the supposed vaccine, there were like 1600 that got COVID 19. That is not a statistically relevant difference in any way and really doesn't show, any benefit from it. And then you look at all cause mortality. That's a normal thing to look at with any drug. What does it do to all cause mortality? If you take the drug, it should reduce all cause mortality. This didn't, when you took the vaccine, it increased all cause mortality among the vaccine arm. And I hate to use the word vaccine, but I'll do that as a shorthand here. "Let's make people understand that the shot arm had higher all cause mortality. So more people were dying if they got the drug than the ones if they didn't. That's just a good overall test of something. And then they hid deaths. So we knew there were deaths. They were hidden. And it's taken a lot of basically citizen and amateur research to go through all those tens of thousands of pages of Pfizer documents. But they found them and people who were injured in the trial. They managed to exclude them, and not count them as serious adverse events. "And we have a great one, great example is a gentleman out of Argentina who's contacted us, Augusto Roux. He's been fighting that issue in Argentina. And that site and Augusto Roux. And what he had to say to us was really interesting because they managed to enroll 4,000 people in a clinical trial in a couple of weeks. Get them run through, get the data and. And it was at a military hospital. And. And then on top of it all, there has been in the Argentine press an allegation of bribery. "And one of the chief researchers who by the way, wrote a, wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine is Fernando Pollock. He's who ran that clinical trial down there. He's well known to us in the United States. He's no longer licensed in the United States. I'm not sure exactly why. He has military and intelligence contacts, which makes me very curious. And he wrote this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which has essentially been debunked since then about how effective this vaccine, trial. This vaccine was, based on the trial numbers. So all kinds of very interesting things on that case."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1924263528854139257/amplify_video_thumb/1924251021506662400/img/q0kaiEyTGGyJoUVV.jpg)
![Yesterday, Ian Whiffin confirmed what Richard Green/the #KarenRead defense said in Trial 1, thus confirming that John O’Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview 3 minutes & 1 second before the Commonwealth’s GPS/location data points show: “[The monotonic clock] is not a clock that can be trusted to see when events occur.” Only the display time is accurate when determining when something actually happened. “All activity is related to that (the display) clock.” “You have to take the values that the monotonic clock provides and add or subtract different values, which are essentially offsets, to get the correct time.” That’s a major problem for the Commonwealth — because Whiffin’s entire Waze location analysis is built on the MONOTONIC TIMESTAMPS! And somehow, neither Whiffin nor Hank Brennan seems to grasp what just happened: They accidentally proved the defense’s theory! Specifically, because the Waze app runs on monotonic time programming and not the display time programming, the timestamps associated with the cached locations from Waze on John’s iPhone are 3 minutes and 1 second fast/ahead, or have a 181 second offset (see attached evidence exhibit from trial 1 with the specific conversions). This means that John O’Keefe arrived at 34 Fairview at approximately 12:21:37am, give or take, and not at 12:24:38am as the Commonwealth asserts, as Waze is based off of the monotonic timestamps, not the display clock timestamps. Consequently, this means John arrives at 34 Fairview BEFORE his Apple Health data recorded him taking flights of stairs, which didn’t first occur until 12:22:14am, therefore meaning that approximately 40 seconds after arriving at the house, John O’Keefe first began climbing some stairs. It suddenly becomes a lot harder for the Commonwealth to discredit the reliability of Apple Health data confirming John went inside the house when his location data also put him there. Why would the Commonwealth rely on the wrong timestamps when conducting their 15+ months after the fact GPS/location data analysis? Because it was right after the defense had first made public John O’Keefe’s Apple Health data showing flights of stairs climbed upon John’s arrival at 34 Fairview—thus establishing that he did in fact go inside the house. They needed to keep John out of the house to have any case, so they opted for discrediting the Apple Health data they so regularly rely upon in their criminal prosecutions, while deliberately only looking at John’s phone location data sourced from the one app that uses monotonic time programming without converting those timestamps to the display time (or subtracting the 3 mins. 1 second offset). By exploiting the incorrect monotonic timestamps of the cached Waze location data, the Commonwealth was able to claim that John’s phone location data showed he’d not yet arrived at 34 Fairview by the time his Apple Health data showed him climbing flights of stairs inside the house. To convert any of John O’Keefe’s Waze data that Whiffin presented into real time, you need to subtract 3 full minutes from each monotonic timestamp. So when Whiffin bizarrely testified that John was climbing stairs while driving down Oakdale at 12:22 AM? Yeah — that actually happened at 12:19 AM. And when he claimed Karen pulled up to 34 Fairview at 12:24 AM? That was really at 12:21 AM. Both times perfectly aligned with the Defense’s timeline. Not the Commonwealth’s. And Hank Brennan? Well, he’s got his expert, Ian Whiffin, casually confirming that John O’Keefe was walking into 34 Fairview at 12:21 AM, and climbing stairs at 12:22 AM. At this point, you really have to ask: Are the Commonwealth’s witnesses planning to leave anything for the Defense to rebut? Or are they just going to blow up their own case — one by one? Because this? This is getting insane. #IanWhiffin #Cellebrite #NorfolkCounty #KarenReadTrial #KarenReadTrial2 #FreeKarenRead #JusticeForJohnOKeefe](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1917205496362328131/amplify_video_thumb/1917205398630670336/img/GNAAuPE59r5bEqJV.jpg)
