#PFIZERLEAK - THE ISRAELI CONNECTION / STATE OF (MIS)INFORMATION
Due to the latest revelation, here is what I've published a year ago, which looked into the extremely problematic "research" contract the Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) has signed with Pfizer.
What you are about to read are TWO threads I published a year ago, on the 21st of August 2021 and on the 11th of September 2021 on my twitter account. Right now I am prohibited from posting because twitter decided I violated their terms, and demanded I will delete what I’ve written and admit I was wrong. No way.
The 1st tweet was called : #PFIZERLEAK - THE ISRAELI CONNECTION
The 2nd one was called: ISRAEL: THE STATE OF (MIS)INFORMATION.
I’ve decided to upload what I’ve written a year ago following Steven Kirsch’s latest post from yesterday. The 2nd part of the 1st thread focuses on the contract of Pfizer and the Israeli MoH, and it is of GREAT importance to explain why they are lying. The 2nd tweet was focusing on the main character in the Israeli cover up…Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis (Israel's director of Public Health Services in the MoH).
#PFIZERLEAK - THE ISRAELI CONNECTION
Was Dr. Robert Malone wrong about his claims about the contract between Israel and Pfizer? Does the Israeli government has an agreement not to disclose adverse events for a minimum of 10 years?
Time to set the records straight.
I don't like bullies. It is one thing for someone gets upset and call you an idiot. It is completely different when a whole smear campaign is being conducted against an individual because of their believes, which is what @TheAtlantic did to @RWMaloneMD
Since I was the person who was interviewed by The American Frontline Doctors which is the tweet he quoted, I thought it is time to address this disgrace of an "article". This is the hit piece of that appeared in The Atlantic, written by Tom Bartlett.
1) does @TheAtlantic claims @RWMaloneMD claims about Israel are misleading speculation or plainly false? Please be clear.
2) "hard to believe" is not investigative journalism, it's an opinion. Did Tom look at the facts and see what exactly is going on between Israel and Pfizer?
First, let us look at the specific case mentioned by The Atlantic.
Tom claimed that "the country’s health ministry has already warned of a link between the Pfizer shot and rare cases of myocarditis."
What really happened? Here's the Israeli press release:
Let us first look at the press release:
1) Even though myocarditis usually appears among younger men, aged 16 to 30, the report admits it started to appear among the younger age group, 16 to 19.
2) 275 cases were mentioned, 148 around the shot.
3) The PR mentioning the total # of individuals who got the shot is statistical fallacy. Since the majority of those who got myocarditis were from the age group of 16 to 19, there should have been focus on the # of vaccinated among that group as it is the major risk group.
4) 95% were considered to be mild cases - is it for the whole 275 cases mentioned, or for the 148?
5) Does the press release means 7 young people at the age of 16 to 19 got severe myocarditis (95% of 148) or 14 out of the total population, and if so what age where they?
Let's dig deeper.
Here is the link to the epidemiological team, who published "Short Communication" called "Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination"
First, a reminder to the Ministry of health press release:
"In most cases myocarditis took the form of mild illness that passed within a few days."
And here is the epidemiological team statement:
"myocarditis may have a more severe clinical presentation, may impose limitations on physical activity and may require long-term medical treatment, and follow-up"
Can you spot the difference ?????????
Next, the majority of the cases, as the MoH, were of young people at the age of 16 to 19, yet only two cases out of 6 which were reported about were at that group.
The selection criteria for this research is not in line with the distribution among population.
The hospital serve 500K, average 1.17 cases per month. 6 patients presented in less than a month.
Israel allowed 16yrs to 18yrs get the shot at the end of January.
1) How many of the 500K got the shot?
2) How many between the age 16 to 18?
3) Are the 6 the only cases?
As you saw, the report of the Ministry of Health, the way it is structured and it's conclusions, alongside the very small selection group and the inability to extract meaningful information from it with regards to the real risk is weird... until you read the Pfizer contract.
The research contract between Pfizer and Israel is called "REAL-WORLD EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT".
The "product" are all vaccines (see #PfizerLeak for definition) for the PREVENTION of the human disease COVID-19 OR ANY OTHER DISEASE caused by SARS-CoV-2 strains, mutation, MODIFICATIONS or derivatives.
1) The product does not prevent the disease.
2) What modifications?
Project: epidemiological data analyses, as described in Section 2 and Exhibit A.
Sec 2: measure and analyze epidemiological data arising from the Product.
Ex. A: Additional subgroup analyses and vaccines effectiveness analyses, AS AGREED BY THE PARTIES.
As you can see by the agreement above, THE PARTIES must agree to perform a test.
The Israeli MoH cannot decide to do "subgroup analysis" by itself. PFIZER NEED TO AGREE ON IT.
The contract seems to be indefinite, until completion of the Project (IF EVER).
"PFIZER and MoH will jointly prepare and publish the Results in submissions) for publication, to peer-reviewed scientific or medical journals."
The Israeli MoH is "allowed" to communicate to the public anything OTHER THAN what they "measure and analyze (in the) epidemiological data arising from the Product rollout"
I guess the Israeli MoH can still publish the weather, right?
If one side want to publish epidemiological data arising from the Product rollout ON THEIR OWN (e.g. MoH), the other side must be given this in advance for it to provide comments.
Pfizer has the right to ask for "the deletion of any reference to the other Party’s Confidential Information from the proposed disclosure or publication".
Confidential: Technology, research, Pfizer Data, project data or results unless public health data.
"All disclosures and publications must expressly acknowledge the other Party, unless such Party objects to such acknowledgment"
If Pfizer & MoH does not agree on publication of information, it will need to be agreed between (someone) in Pfizer and Sharon Alroy-Preis, who works for the MoH as Israel's director of public health services.
Sharon Alroy-Preis was a co-author of "Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data"
So Sharon Alroy-Preis, the person who is suppose to negotiate in case Israel wants to publish something has been a co-author of a publication which was using the project data.
Isn't that a conflict of interest?
Sharon Alroy-Preis works for the MoH, who signed the manufacturing the supply agreement with Pfizer and agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer...against any and all suits, claims...caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine"
So, what did we learned so far?
1) @TheAtlantic "journalist" didn't do any journalism but a hit piece, without looking at the evidence.
2) Isreal's MoH reporting seems to be extremely biased towards downgrading adverse events, trying to bury them.
3) The contract itself has no expiration date, which gives incentives to both parties to make it last as long as possible. For Israel MoH, it means people who work in the project has a job, get published in magazines (e.g. Sharon Alroy-Preis), and have no incentives to stop it.
4) There is no clear definition what is "public health data" in the contract; epidemiological data is considered to be project data, not public health data. Pfizer and MoH need to agree on new epidemiological investigations.
5) There are conflicts of interest both on MoH, who is suppose to protect Pfizer from any legal claims and yet it runs this project, and on a personal level, by assigning an individual who works for the MoH as a mediator, who also is directly involve in the project.
6) I think that what I found is much worse than the claim of the scientist who told @RWMaloneMD that the Israel and Pfizer will not disclose adverse events for a minimum of 10 years. The research contract is heavily redacted & the Manufacturing & supply contract was not exposed.
7) I INVITE YOU TO READ THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
Finally, @RWMaloneMD - thank you for your courage for speaking out and withstanding the waves of slur. What an inspiration.
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
As was brought to my attention, this smear job was supported by grants from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Johnson Foundation, a member of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
#PFIZERLEAK - ISRAEL: THE STATE OF (MIS)INFORMATION.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BILL CLINTON AND THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
On Friday @arad_nir, Israeli journalist, has exposed that according to Philip Dormitzer, Pfizer's Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer (Viral Vaccines), Israel acts as "a sort of a laboratory", and that its MoH is exclusively using the Pfizer product. Arad Nir pointed out that this was in direct conflict with the statement of Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis (Israel's director of Public Health Services in the MoH) given only 3 weeks ago, when he asked her why does the Israeli citizens are trapped by the Pfizer contract. The reply of Dr. Alroy-Preis to @arad_nir was that "so first of all, no one has imprisoned us, and there was no phase [where] there was any exclusivity agreement with Pfizer."
Alroy-Preis didn't lie, but she didn't tell the truth... let's break down her statements.
First: "no one has imprisoned us" is a statement of a member of the Ministry of Health, who was "willing to carry out the foregoing pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in (Pfizer manufacturing & supply agreement)", which fully indemnified Pfizer.
Israeli citizens had no ability to choose what vaccine they could get. They were given one choice - Pfizer. If you want to know how bad that choice was, read this section from my 1st #Coptigate thread.
Second point: there might not have been an exclusivity AGREEMENT, but the "Real-World Epidemiological Evidence Collaboration Agreement" Israel as signed with Pfizer created a de-facto exclusivity. This was the only way this research would have worked.
The Pfizer-Israel project objective was "To measure and analyze epidemiological data arising from the Product (Pfizer vaccine) rollout, to determine whether herd immunity is achieved after reaching a certain percentage of vaccination coverage in Israel."
Look at exhibit A & B. If you had multiple vaccines, Pfizer would not be able to gain anything from the data. The data shared with them would have had to include the other product.
This agreement does not mention any other product nor how it will impact the project.
Let us validate that claim:
The Freedom of Information Movement @shakoof asked the MoH to provide the data which was delivered to Pfizer. Here is the post from @Nadav_Eyal on the topic.
The reply stated (translated from Hebrew):
"(We) attach files that were transferred to Pfizer as part of the information sharing agreement".
Notice: FILES. not THE FILES, but FILES.
In the same file, it is stated that "3. Pfizer were not provided access to databases, but FILES were sent as was attached to section 2 of this response"
The letter does not mention what other files were sent to Pfizer, other than mentioning one more file.
Here is a direct link to the data (ZIP file). The dataset includes a document by the name:
תיאור קבצים 642150.pdf
Which is entitled as "FILES DESCRIPTION: data transferred to Pfizer".
Again - NOT ALL THE DATA. NOT "THE DATA" = SOME DATA.
The letter inform some XLS files passed anonymization.
1) According to the contract Pfizer was supposed to receive ONLY de-identified data.
2) Could not in the XLS with such anonymization.
Did Pfizer receive Identifiable Health Information? What files are missing?
Finally - NONE of the files provided by the MoH gives any indication to any other vaccine usage, which should have been given to Pfizer as without it they would not be able to measure the impact of other products.
Sharon Alroy-Preis was one of the co-authors of a Lancet paper about the Impact & effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine. It would be impossible to measure the impact of Pfizer vaccines on cases, hospitalisations, and deaths without exclusivity.
As mentioned (#PFIZERLEAK - THE ISRAELI CONNECTION), Sharon Alroy-Preis has conflicts of interests: she works for the MoH, who signed the indemnification contact with Pfizer, and SHE was assigned (in research contract) to decide what data is published.
She is the head of the division in the Israeli MoH which plans, operates and leads the Ministry of Health and the entire health system in the fight against the epidemic, including vaccinations and epidemiological investigations. Pfizer didn't need an exclusivity agreement, They had Sharon Alroy-Preis who had the power to push an exclusive usage of Pfizer, had the personal motivation to do so, and held a huge power in vetting information relating to the performance of the Pfizer vaccine.
Sharon Alroy-Preis did not lie in her statements to @arad_nir, but she was hiding the truth about the DE-FACTO exclusivity, and I believe it is reasonable to assume she was involved in it, and perhaps chosen for her role because of it.
@mentionssummarized it best: it is... appropriate that we (the citizens) will be informed that we are part of a medical experiment, ask for our permission and our consent to participate in an experiment of a commercial company which uses the results for their US (FDA approval).
REMEMBER: we are talking about a product that has SEVERE design issues with risks identified in 2011. Please read about codon optimization and S-2P.
People's health should never be seen as a collateral damage, and NO ONE should be allowed to risk kids!
Like @BillClinton's testimony about @MonicaLewinsky - ALWAYS NOTICE NOT ONLY WHAT ONE IS SAYING, BUT HOW ONE IS SAYING IT, AND WHAT ONE IS NOT SAYING.
NEVER EVER FORGET THIS CLAUSE:
"Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term eﬀects and eﬃcacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse eﬀects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."
That’s it for now.
See you in the next round…
Thanks for reading Sense of Awareness! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
In response to a Josh Guetzkow Substack article about the lies and deception of the Israeli Ministry of Health,, here is what Steve Kirsch wrote:
Writes Steve Kirsch's newsletter
11 hr ago
Good job. There cannot be too much coverage of this. I just told Yaffa about your post
Thank you for this information.