Israel Pfizer "REAL-WORLD EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT"
SAFETY AND EFFICACY STUDIES THAT DOESN'T LOOK AT SAFETY
REAL-WORLD EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT
“This REAL-WORLD EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT dated as of January 6, 2021 (this “Agreement”) by and between the Israeli Ministry of Health, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the State of Israel (the “MoH”), and Pfizer Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with its Affiliates, “PFIZER”) (each, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”).”
Epidemiological Evidence, you will observe has nothing to do whatsoever with any harms that the administration of the vaccines had on the Israeli people. Consider that fully, like the eye of Sauron it is focused in one direction only, and that is elucidating the evidence that will show, the vaccines work to their ‘public health purpose’ and are ‘safe and effective’.
It is not merely a missed opportunity, in that much data is collected through this agreement. It is not merely that the world was looking to Israel for those very safety signals. It is that even finding a severe safety signal will terminate the agreement to look at the epidemiological evidence.
So find what you are looking for and step over the mines that are blowing up at peoples’ feet. The Agreement is an appalling use of legal structure, to confine and restrict, for the purpose of justifying a crime against humanity.
“WHEREAS, PFIZER and BioNTech SE, a company organized and existing under the laws of Germany are collaborating to develop a vaccine to address the global COVID-19 pandemic; and”
“WHEREAS, the Parties had previously entered into the confidential Manufacturing and Supply Agreement dated (the “Manufacturing and Supply Agreement”), under which MoH agreed to purchase the Product (as defined below) and PFIZER agreed to manufacture and supply the Product, all in accordance with the terms of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, and subject to certain conditions precedent, including but not limited to certain regulatory approvals and supply availability; and
“WHEREAS, under Section 2.1(f) of the Manufacturing and Supply agreement, the Parties agreed to cooperate on a reasonable basis to share information and data regarding the distribution, administration and use of the Product, including to track its benefits; and”
I note that in the very raison d'être of the Agreement, they state the NEED to track the BENEFITS of the ADMINISTRATION AND USE OF THE PRODUCT. The tracking of HARMS IS NOT MERELY ABSENT, it is not the purpose of the Agreement to look. It is an agreement to track Benefits alone. Let’s think on that. A system can set up discrimination, by setting up a qualification that omits a large segment of society, or the structures of the organization disadvantage a certain outcome.
The outcome that is omitted from occurring, is no accident: rather it is set up and constrained as such by willful, legal contractual design. thou shalt not LOOK, COLLECT, ORGANIZE OR COLLECT HARMS. Thou shalt look, collect organize, publish BENEFITS ALONE. In in one fail swoop the collection of Epidemiological data becomes not that.
The Collection of Epidemiological data is the collection of data from surveillance systems (and other sources). If you so curate, either the surveillance system, define the data that may be collected, agree by contract to ignore sets of data (that are inconvenient to a commercial or more vile purpose, and for profit), collect only the data that achieves a set of outcomes defined by purpose: IT IS NOT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA. IT IS SIMPLY FRAUDULENT TO EVEN DEFINE IT, OR PUBLISH TO THE WORLD THE SO COLLECTED DATA. It is a method to Achieve ‘Grant Funding’ perhaps in the pay for play academic world. It is a method to establish or demonstrate Scientific ‘Consensus’ for GLOBAL WARMING NOW Climate Change. It is not a Collection of Epidemiological Data.
If I asked my child if his room is clean. And he together with a third unknown party, defines the sock drawer as his room, and is ordered under pain of confidentiality, and duty to joint publish, and by virtue of the socks being all over the floor in retched odor, WITH NONE IN THE DRAWER, he can announce with Confidence with third party in Peer Reviewed Published Journals that HIS ROOM IS CLEAN. This is republished and pronounced with all talking heads in a loop 24/7 and used for the basis of similar clean room announcements for boys and girls everywhere. They just point to my son’s study and publication.
So the Aaron Siri gets access to the stinky socks all over his room data despite my son asking for 75 years to publish the stinky socks data. My son knowing full well, if the judge gives him 75 years he will never be forced to tell the truth or clean up his room.
Then Dr. Naomi Wolfe and her team go over the sock data and find: dishes under the bed, games pieces and the lost electronic charger in the laundry bin, dirty clothes on the floor, the missing homework, dog toys, his uneaten lunch hidden under books and so on. But Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the Media censor you and say his room is clean, or send you to an approved site that is called CLEAN ROOM.
Google curates all the search results to the clean drawer being the room and doesn’t allow you to see all the rumblings about the pizza crusts, mud from his boots and so on. Wikepedia defines those who look for and find and discuss the dirty room as Vile Spreaders of Misinformation. Governments define those who search for Pizza crust, or dog toys, chess board pieces in bed sheets, as Extremists.
This Agreement’s sole purpose is to justify the further expansion of the Vaccine program and to publish in accordance with that justification. Naming it REAL-WORLD EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT, is another Oxymoron that seems so popular with the pharma-military-bio-medical-big-tech -media complex.
Let’s call this a system to exclusive collect the data that justifies the original and lucrative Supply Agreement.
“WHEREAS, PFIZER has obtained certain conditional approvals for the Product, including under Regulation 29(a)(9) of the Israeli Pharmacist Regulations (Medical Preparations), 1986, as amended, and analogous emergency use authorizations in other jurisdictions; and”
“WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it would be highly beneficial from a public health perspective to track pandemic data in accordance with vaccination compliance in a Real-World context to evaluate whether herd immunity protection is observed during the Product vaccination program rollout.”
Again data that doesn’t show a Pandemic would not be tracked. It is also looking for ‘Vaccine Compliance’ data. This is an interesting set of data to look for. It is data that assists their ability to profit from a subset of the population. It’s data that helps them control narrative for vaccine uptake or design systems that enable greater penetration of their widget in the market place.
I note they are Evaluating whether herd immunity protection is observed- will that be published. As the need for umpteenth and endless boosters, yearly shots, clearly are evidence of no heard immunity.
The whole Agreements works on the basis of a
JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE and is a scam to the extent scientists, pundits, communities, work places, are looking to the Israeli ‘epidemiological’ ‘data’ for guidance.
It was designed for one purpose; to perpetuate that guidance. You will not see reference to the collection of adverse events, except that if such is observed the agreement terminates.
Ie don’t collect, don’t publish it and if you manage to inadvertently collect that data anyways WE STOP LOOKING IMMEDIATELY. spank spank spank.
This Agreement doesn’t attempt to track any safety concerns or set up any methodology for how it should be captured. In fact, if it is seen in a severe fashion the Agreement terminates.
Let’s look at what they decided by Agreement was Epidemiological Data.
“Exhibit A
MoH and PFIZER will collaborate on analyses of the data points listed in this Exhibit A.
MoH will provide PFIZER with the data specified in Exhibit B.
Endpoints (beginning and ending dates to be mutually agreed by the Parties)
• Confirmed COVID-19 cases/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 severe/ critical cases /week
• Confirmed COVID-19 ventilator use/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 deaths/week
• Symptomatic cases/week
• Weekly numbers of vaccinees, as total and by age and other demographic subgroups.
• Number of cases per week by age groups, and other demographic factors.
• Additional subgroup analyses and vaccine effectiveness analyses, as agreed by the Parties Additional potential analyses:
• Direct medical costs averted based on modeled impact of national vaccination program on outpatient visits, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, etc.
The scope of transfer of data was detailed in Exhibit B DATA TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS.
Despite being an Agreement that purports to address ‘safety and efficacy’ of the products, you will notice that there is no system of data collection for any Adverse Events. There is no system of collection of any deaths. There is no system of collection of safety signals. Safety and efficacy is down regulated to covid cases.
The Agreements also set up the justification narrative for the vaccine in that it looks for and therefore must find Justification: DIRECT MEDICAL COSTS AVERTED BASED ON MODELED IMPACT OF NATIONAL VACCINATION PROGRAM ON OUTPATIENT VISITS, HOSPITALIZATIONS, ICU ADMISSIONS, ETC.
I want to note and point out that Modeling is NOT FACT. So data is collected and then they joint decide on the ‘Model’ parameters, Model algorythms and put what the facts they select are into the Model parameters to come up with an Averted Costs. BOOM THERE’S YOUR PERPETUATION OF NARRATIVE BASED TRUTH. Contracts like this that set up the justification for the perpetuation of the continuation of the Commercial Purpose they are pushing throughout the world should be examined as a cornerstone for FRAUD. The intent and purpose of the contract is to report a tiny subset of data as ‘epidemiological data’ to DEMONSTRATED SAFETY AND EFFICACY.
It is my humble position that THE plain reading of the contract establishes this.
Where Exhibit A seems to be what is permitted to be ‘Collected’, Exhibit B seems to be what is permitted to be Transferred.
“Exhibit B DATA TRANSFER REQUIREMENTS
“MoH will transmit to PFIZER in electronic form aggregate pandemic data as described in this Exhibit.
“MoH will use a mutually agreeable electronic transmission method that protects the security and integrity of the data.
“1. STATUS REPORTS MoH will provide to PFIZER weekly data transfers that include the following information:
1.1 Epidemiological Data Each data transfer will include, at a minimum, current counts of the following:
• Confirmed COVID-19 cases/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 severe/ critical cases /week • Confirmed COVID-19 ventilator use/week
• Confirmed COVID-19 deaths/week
• Symptomatic cases/week
• Weekly numbers of vaccinees, as total and by age and other demographic subgroups.
• Number of cases per week by age groups, and other demographic factors.
2. ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS
Both parties will provide to each other as needed the following Ancillary Documents:
2.1 If relevant an electronic “Data Dictionary” consisting of all data variables used, annotated with variable names and corresponding datasets;
2.2 documentation of statistical programming algorithms used to create the analysis datasets, methodologies used to convert source data into output (derived) data; and relevant statistical analysis assumptions or plans; if needed to understand the datasets (e.g., Statistical Analysis Plan, List of Tables, programming plan);
2.3 any other documentation as may reasonably be requested by either party and mutually agreed upon by both parties.”
DERIVED DATA??? you read that right. In 2.2 they come up with a definition that coverts SOURCE DATA into DERIVED DATA. Ok. So confine the collection of data (Source Data) and then covert it Derived Data under “METHODOLOGIES”. would this pass the muster test? NO. iT DOES NOT EVEN PASS MY FIRST READING ASSESSMENT. You can assume the systemic discrimination that is in this Agreement, is purposeful and therefore Fraudulent ab initio. So the data collected is constrained to pro narrative, pro justification of the underlying commercial purpose, it is put through a thing called “Methodologies” which is not transparent, and then it comes out the other end as “DERIVED DATA’, it is further massaged based on ‘relevant statistical analysis assumptions OR plans’.
WHERE IS THE TABLE ASKING FOR the collection of adverse events. ABSENT. no measurement, no collection, no massaging, no publication, no counter-narrative data or warning to the public in the Entire Agreement. This entered willingly with aforeknowledge by a world government of some astuteness. (Brilliant people drafted this). Do the people of Israel comprehend the fraud, if you agree with my reading, perpetuated upon them. Do the people of other nations who relied on this ‘publication of great Epidemiological data’ undertand the liability that may flow from this Agreement alone.
Exhibit B continued.
“2.4 Transfer Schedule.
MoH will transfer aggregate epidemiological data to PFIZER:
(i) weekly;
(ii) at the end of 1 year for any residual data both parties mutually agreed upon and other frequency mutually agreed upon.
MoH will work with PFIZER if changes are needed in the data formatting or transmission process to ensure data quality and usability. Analysis of the data associated with the vaccination project will be independently or jointly performed by MOH and Pfizer and shared with the other Party. Any analysis/results Pfizer may perform will be shared with the MOH to discuss and finalize jointly.”
There is a controlled output. One party ie Pfizer has an economic interest in the data sets being published in one way. Yet the MOH agrees to all these legal constrains to massage the product to a result. The very conflict of interest of Pfizer in this data review agreement should place doubt on the published result. But when you look at the provisions of the Agreement and the data collected you are left with one result only. THAT TRUTH WILL NOT BE FOUND BY THE COLLECTION OF ‘DATA’ UNDER THE CONSTRAINS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
I did not see who ‘the other Party’ was. DOD? I am also assuming that this contract is reproduced as accurate so anyone who has seen this referenced in actual proceedings could please help out with more sources.
“1.5 “Pfizer Data” means aggregated information about the Product in other jurisdictions in the world, which may include scientific, safety and efficacy information collected by PFIZER as may be useful to serve the Project's objectives which will be provided by PFIZER to the MoH subject to applicable legal requirements and based on PFIZER’s reasonable determination.”
AGAIN I note: Pfizer data is provided by Pfizer to MOH regarding safety and efficacy ‘as may be useful to serve the Project’s objectives’. The Projects objectives are not truth as we have seen but narrative based publication. The Pfizer data is ‘based on Pfiezer’s reasonable determination’. So is that reviewed by MOH. The safety and efficacy data is provided by the party most subject to conflict of interest and only need to do if it supports the project’s objectives.
Reading like a lawyer who has negotiated agreements with very sophisticated parties in Transportation, OEM, Real Estate Development, Insurance, mining, employment, Tech, and Telecom makes me look at provisions from a first principled manner rather than simply from previous knowledge of precise provisions.
“1.7 “Project” means the COVID-19 Real-World epidemiological data analyses conducted by the Parties involving data collected during the MoH’s vaccination program using the Product, as described in Section 2 and Exhibit A of this Agreement, including components thereof and enhancements thereto, developed and implemented by the Parties under the terms of this Agreement.
1.8 “Project Data” means any de-identified data provided by the MoH to PFIZER in the framework of the Project”
Project is the analysis constrained by the data collection in Exhibit A, as reviewed. So circular to protect the purpose.
1.10 names Restricted Parties; these become parties that Pfizer and other have decided are adverse scientists to the purpose of the agreement.
7.4 Each Party covenants, represents and warrants to the other Party that such Party is not debarred by any applicable authority, including under subsections 306(a) or (b) of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended,
is not on the U.S. Government Suspension and Debarment List; HHS OIG Excluded Parties List; or any similar disqualification lists, licensure restrictions, disciplinary sanctions, or enforcement action against scientists, health care providers, or research professionals under the laws of Israel, the U.S. or any other jurisdiction and it has not and shall not use in any capacity the services of any person or entity, including any individuals, agents, employees, subcontractors, customers, healthcare providers, hospitals, pharmacies, clinics and any other relevant party that is involved, directly or indirectly, in the activities under this Agreement, that has been debarred by any such applicable authority with respect to this Agreement. Such Party shall immediately notify the other Parties in the event that it, its subcontractors or any of its or their employees becomes debarred or excluded during the Term of this Agreement. Such Party acknowledges that such debarment shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement by the other Parties for cause.
THINK ON THAT WILL YOU; IF a researcher or scientist comes to a disallowed conclusion, they will find themselves on a certain list; and then these individuals CANNOT work on the project. OH. So essentially if you’ve looked at a set of data and come to a disallowed conclusion on safety or efficacy then you can’t work on the project. Do you see that this set up is a FRAUD AB INITIO.
If you are in the US or ISREAL. Please compile an FOI request for the contents of those lists.
Termination in 4.2 includes for material breach: ie not collecting or massaging the data to the purpose, or if Project is scientifically futile (ie they don’t have the data that substantiate further the roll out); or if ‘severe patient safety’ issues result.
So essentially you are required to stop looking at the data when it doesn’t conform to purpose: narrative control.
7. 5 “Each party further represents and warrants that MOH has been provided with a copy of Pfizer’s International Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Principles (attached hereto as Exhibit C)”
So look an anti-bribery protection. But in the context of this agreement who bloody cares. The baby was already thrown out with the bath water. In the context of my son’s clean room, he show’s me his ‘good conduct’ license as further proof the room is clean, but doesn’t change or alter a thing.
“7.7.1 Each Party represents and warrants that such party and its respective owners, directors, and officers are neither a Restricted Party, nor owned or controlled by a Restricted Party. With respect to the activities performed under this Agreement, each Party confirms that Affiliates, agents, employees, or subcontractors directly or indirectly involved in the activities contemplated under this Agreement are not Restricted Parties and that no such Restricted Parties will be engaged in any activities contemplated under this Agreement or delegated any activities contemplated under this Agreement. In the event that any of these representations change during the Term of this Agreement, the Party connected with such a person or entity will immediately inform the other Party and suspend all related activities and payments….”
Restricted Party is an anathema to these guys. Who’s on the list Dr. McCullough, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Wolfe?
In 7.8, Pfizer can’t use the Project data if it doesn’t ‘improve public health’. At first blush you might find this comforting, until you realize that adverse events are likely lumped and defined in parameters as Individual Health, whereas Public health is likely defined as broad herd immunity (for however SHORT A TIME PERIOD).
I would invite all to share and analyze this Agreement and the consequences that flow from ‘defining’ in so constrained a fashion the collection of ‘epidemiological data’. There is no way this Agreement can be interpreted to discovering the truth in the data.
The original purpose of epidemiology as a scientific study was to cast a wide net over data and to see what could be gleaned as a result. This is not what the MOH and Pfizer set out to do. THEY DEFINED BY CONTRACT the data that would be collected, the data that would not, the massaging of the data the modeling and the algorythms, the need to keep the naughty list of individuals or groups from working on the project, and the need for the data to support the purpose of the project. Anything I missed?
I’d love your comments and thank-you for reading and sharing and making my substack a success.
I’m falling in love with the world we are rebuilding in the rubble of their putrid desecration of what is good.
Shine a light on an open door: (windows are closing everywhere);
We fell in love in hopeless place!!;
FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR WORLD AND BRING YOUR A-GAME TO LOVING IT BACK TO HEALTH;
DEFINE YOUR LIFE BY HOPE; YOUR ACTIONS BY FAITH; PROTECT YOUR COMMUNITY WITH LOVE AND SET ABOUT IT ALL FULL OF JOY.
By the way this is the 2012 version by Savana. Do you have an earlier version to link to?
AND THIS AGREEMENT, Would you therefore say it is a fraud on the purpose of the field of study itself?
If you appreciate my work please let me know.
I read the "other party" as being each other; it flows in that sentence. There are only two parties identified in the contract.