The Digger
The Digger Podcast
A vaccinator on the Pfizer trial had no medical experience at all

A vaccinator on the Pfizer trial had no medical experience at all

Her prior experience was working at a taco restaurant
The Digger
Brook Jackson - The Digger, Ep 2
Watch now (45 min) | Uploading as Substack just gave me video rights. Summary: Brook raised the alarm at 153 sites, only 9 were inspected by the FDA Untrained staff giving out vaccines Doctors were unblinded during the trial Data on patient forms was forged, things like signatures…
Read more


  • Brook raised the alarm at 153 sites, only 9 were inspected by the FDA

  • Untrained staff giving out vaccines

  • Doctors were unblinded during the trial

  • Data on patient forms was forged, things like signatures

  • Investigators requested to change the diagnosis of patients

  • Patients were not given proper informed consent

  • Patients were incentivised not to ‘tattle’ to the media regarding chaotic practice

I spoke with Brook Jackson last week. Brook is a named whistleblower who wanted to draw attention to poor practices on the Pfizer vaccine trial. Ordinarily, her story would be absolutely huge but in these times of algorithmically driven censorship, no one has really heard her story. Amongst many of the things she told me, the standout was that one of the vaccinators - a person literally injecting a trial participant - had no medical training at all. She was tasked with preparing the vaccine and injecting it into people, and her prior experience was in a Taco restaurant.

Brook’s story (minus the Taco part…) was reported in the British Medical Journal and was subsequently ‘fact-checked’ by the ‘independent’ fact-checkers at Facebook. It’s anyone’s guess as to how the BMJ can be fact-checked on their own reporting about a medical whistleblower. The important thing is, the fact-check throttled the shares on her story. As such, the information she risked her career to release did not find its audience.

Here is the BMJ’s article on the matter - you can rest assured that the reporter there, Paul Thacker, did a great job. He ‘did the work’, so we can be sure that Brook is who she says she is. What she has tried to draw attention to seems important, and yet she has not been mentioned at all by The BBC, The Guardian or the New York Times. Brook has documentation to prove many of the things she says.

Brook raises serious questions that demand answers: questions over the integrity of the pivotal data we relied on to roll out the vaccines, and valid questions of the regulators’ ability to have proper oversight of critical medical trials.

Brook told me she fears for her safety as a result of blowing the whistle on these issues. For a whistleblower concerned with data integrity in medical trials to be left out in the cold like this is certainly concerning. I believe Brook deserves better.

There’s also a video of our conversation at Rumble . It’s not on YouTube because there’s a mass censorship campaign. In case you weren’t aware, anyone talking positively about early treatment options, or issues surrounding the vaccine rollout, are removed at the algorithm level. It’s important to draw reference to this. The past two years of digital information have been filtered. I know this because my own videos have been removed by an algorithm for mentioning Ivermectin positively. I’ll be writing on this shortly.

An imagined conversation with my critics,,,

The whole reason I am doing this independently, in my own way, is because no one in mainstream circles wants to go near this topic. The BMJ ran Brook’s story - and that is good enough for me. Perhaps you think that because her story wasn’t run by the BBC or elsewhere, it’s not worth covering. I do not think that. There have been many stories that have been misreported or totally ignored over the last two years. Something has gone drastically wrong to create such a prolonged period of failure. Someone needs to address it.

We need credible journalism in this space. If I take this to a publisher, they are going to tell me where to go, so it’s left to me to try and make sense of this. If you want to have a handle on how a story like Brook Jackson’s should be dealt with, maybe you should actually deal with her story yourself.

I understand the sensitivity of talking about vaccine safety after the vaccines have been rolled out. As I’ve said before, I’d much prefer to not be in this situation, having to sweep up the mess that the silence has created. Nonetheless, as sensitive as this is, I believe it needs to be looked at and so I published it.

Questions for me

  1. To those familiar with the regulatory and medical trial process - can you cast some light on the issues Brook raises? Is this kind of thing normal? Are these problems cause for concern?

Questions for mainstream journalists

  1. Since Brook’s story was available by November 2021, it could have given UK nationals better-informed consent over the booster shot. As such, her story is in the public interest. Why was her story deemed not to be in the public interest?

  2. If the answer is: “it’s the regulator’s job to interrogate these things” then what if we have a problem at the regulator? How will we ever know if we refuse to listen to whistleblowers concerned about regulatory oversight?

  3. Now you’ve heard Brook’s story, are you at all concerned about the total silence on her case?

Like this? Check out my series on Ivermectin

  1. Ivermectin Part 1: The Very Unusual Paper

  2. Ivermectin Part 2: A Very Unusual Business

  3. Ivermectin Part 3: The People Behind the Curtain

    1. Part 1: An Unacknowledged Influence

    2. Part 2: The Conflicts of Interest of those who discredited Ivermectin

    3. Part 3: Who is Andrew Owen?

The Digger
The Digger Podcast
There's not enough digging in journalism any more. PR agencies carefully curate the whims of journalists. We're digging, just a bit, to find out more.