Pfizer did not know whether Covid vaccine stopped transmission before rollout, executive admits

According to Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, in an interview on NBC News on Feb 25 2021: "But there are a lot of indicators right now that are telling us that there is a protection against transmission of the disease."

Do you suppose then, the CEO of Pfizer just confused transmission with infection, too?

 

Yes.

Many drugs that were designed for one thing are commonly used to treat other conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drugs_known_for_off-label_use

 

No.

And how do I know that? Because the quote you gave talks about transmission only. He doesn't say a damn thing about infection.

The COVID vaccines were designed to protect against infection, as all vaccines are, that there is protection against transmission too is just a plus.

 

It's the, "did we forget to mention/disclose that" line.

 

Let me just get this straight here...

Given: Pfizer recently testified before the EU that they hadn't tested if the vaccine prevented transmission prior to its rollout on Dec 4 2020. On Feb 25 2021, Pfizer CEO said on TV that it does.
Also given: by that time we had achieved a 6% vaccination rate and only a 3% rate of people who had been fully vaccinated for the two weeks required to actually achieve protection after vaccination.

So its your opinion that a sample of 3% of our population of very recently vaccinated people provided a suitable testing environment to make a reasonable claim to the public that a vaccine had attained an effect that it was neither previously tested for nor designed for, allowing for data collection, analysis and dissimination, in less than 3 months. Have I got that right?

 

He said that there were "a lot of indicators"
That's just the start of the process of actually showing that it helped prevent transmission.
He didn't say that it helped prevent transmission just that there were a "lot of indicators" that it did.

 

I would be wasting my time and keystrokes. The topic has been discussed many times since you've been here. It is true that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Equally true that you can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him think.

 

Agreed. It’s very frustrating trying to get anti vaxxers to think.

 

And it won't be corrected until the company's executives do time. $2.3B is just a slap on the wrist. They need to do time so an example can be set.

 

Dr. Malhotra was initially pro-vax and went on TV to encourage everyone to get the shot.

Host: So you're not anti-vax? This is specifically about the Pfizer mRNA vax?

Dr. Malhotra: No, not at all... the efficacy (of the vax) is extremely poor...

 

The purpose of the corporation is to be able to assign personage to a piece of paper precisely so the individuals who commit crimes in its name can be sheilded from doing time. Legally, Pfizer did the deed, not anyone who can actually be jailed. The Romans invented this farce 1000 years ago, and its wildly successful among paracriminal organizations and the govt bureaucracies that need their well-compensated assistance from time to time.

 

Dr. Malhotra is a cardiologist, not a virologist nor an immunologist. He is part of a very small minority of doctors who are against COVID-19 vaccines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Malhotra

His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health. His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018". During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan, which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence. He has also campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines.

 

You seem to have missed the part where he started off being very pro-vax but then the data made him have second thoughts. Well?

And The British Heart Foundation is a disreputable outfit:

https://metro.co.uk/2016/12/07/rspc...tion-secretly-wealth-screened-donors-6307346/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/4...s-donations-to-fund-vivisection-tests-on-dogs

"Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan, which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence."

And what research would that be? Or rather, who funded that research?

"The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful."

Arnold S. Relman, former editor, New England Journal of Medicine

 

Is that how polio and measles vaccines used to work?

 

This shows why you have so little credibility here. You make false claims often.

Pfizer to pay $2.3 billion, agrees to criminal plea | Reuters

 

Croatian lawyer and MEP Mislav Kolakusic calls for Pfizer, and others, to be prosecuted:

Mislav Kolakusic MEP
@mislavkolakusic

IMPORTANT:

The EU Commission should immediately terminate contracts for new doses of fake #vaccines against #COVID19 and demand the return of the 2.5 billion euros paid so far.

Everyone who lied that #vaccines prevent the spread of the virus must be held accountable.


https://twitter.com/mislavkolakusic/status/1580556991822696448

 

It's always about the money.

 

~ As it turns out we are the testing ground. The jabs junkies in particular will be the test subjects for long-term side-effects ...

​

 

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dr-sucharit-bhakdis-multiple-coronavirus-allegations

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...the-decimation-of-the-world's-population.html

 

Both of the nation’s most prominent fact-checking organizations—FactCheck.org and PolitiFact—tilt to the political left, which makes them representative of the majority of journalists who also lean to port. Both of these groups go far beyond what they say they do, claiming to fact-check subjective things like political rhetoric that are not susceptible to fact-checking.
https://capitalresearch.org/article/dishonest-fact-checkers/

Poynter receives funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Google, the Craig Newmark Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Omidyar Network, and other extreme left groups
https://www.trueactivist.com/george...orce-behind-facebooks-new-fake-news-detector/

Censoring Conservative Media The Unreliable Poynter Institute
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...nservative-media-unreliable-poynter-institute

Poynter Institute Goes Down In Flames Over Fake News
https://www.libertynation.com/poynter-institute-goes-down-in-flames-over-fake-news/

 

Both are still up there at the time of posting:

Short version:
https://twitter.com/draseemmalhotra/status/1582747997498396673

Full 7min. interview - Suspend Vax Program Now:

 

~ Who checks the "fact checkers " ... ? '

 

So, instead of refuting what the articles actually say, you decide it would be better to attack them as a source.

 

So you are saying there was no reason to fire people from their job for not being vaccinated? After all, "Preventing transmission is NOT the intention of a vaccine". If the vaccine only helps YOU from getting sick, then that there makes the decision to be vaccinated more a personal decision and not a decision that impacts others. Seems Biden, the CDC, and Fauci were all liars for saying people could not spread the virus if they have been vaccinated.

 

Rightly so:



As for the second:

At the time of writing -- April 28, 2021 -- COVID-19 has killed more than 3.1 million people worldwide, including more than 570,000 in the United States and 82,000 in Germany.

Those figures can't be trusted:

“…the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death — regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of Infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may [that] diagnosis be made. ”
- Open Letter from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“On re-evaluation by the [Italian] National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of [coronavirus] death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus”
- Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health

'The CDC/WHO amalgam seriously exaggerated the number of deaths blamed on COVID-19 by the simple expedient of jiggering their own long-established reporting guidelines. Violating the above science, “it” told the entire world-wide medical establishment to illegitimately list anyone dying as a COVID-19 death solely because assumed, presumed, probable, suspected or tested COVID-19 was present.'
- Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota physician and Republican state senator said he received a 7-page document coaching him to fill out death certificates with a COVID-19 diagnosis without a lab test to confirm the patient actually had the virus: "Last Friday I received a 7-page document that told me if I had an 86-year-old patient that had pneumonia but was never tested for COVID-19 but some time after she came down with pneumonia we learned that she had been exposed to her son who had no symptoms but later on was identified with COVID-19, then it would be appropriate to diagnose on the death certificate COVID-19". Dr. Jensen explained that this is not a normal procedure and gave the example, if the same patient had pneumonia during flu season and he didn’t have a test confirming the patient also had influenza, he would never diagnose the patient with influenza on the death certificate.

The city [New York] has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.
- The New York Times

There's also no evidence that PCR tests lie.

"The PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick”. - Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the RT-PCR.


Whistleblower activists file complaint with International Criminal Court


December 6, 2021

International Criminal Court
Office of the Prosecutor
Communications
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands

EMAIL: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
(TREATY OF ROME STATUTE, ART. 15.1 AND 53)

Subject of complaint:
- Violations of the Nuremberg Code
- Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute
- Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute
- Violation of Article 8 of the Rome
- Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute

Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for
numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes
of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.


...


6 PCR Tests

A review from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Appendix 2)
found that the standard PRC test is so sensitive, that it can detect old infections by picking up
fragments of dead viral cells. Originally developed to detect the presence of DNA and RNA in
biological samples, even its Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis declared that PCR was
never intended to diagnose a disease. It simply detects the presence of specific genetic material,which may or may not indicate infection. As Dr. Kary Mullis put it, the PCR technique can find almost anything in anybody. The PCR test uses amplification cycles to find viral RNA.
The sample is repeatedly chemically amplified to increase the RNA copies until they can be
detected. Each “cycle” of amplification doubles the number of molecules in a sample. If you
run enough cycles, you can effectively find a single molecule of any substance. Public Health
England (PHE) policy confirms that the cycle threshold should be set around 25.6 and if the
machine must run more than 25 to 35 cycles (Appendix 2a) to get the sample to the test’s Limit of Detection, there isn’t enough virus in the sample to matter clinically.