OKAY, so we’ve all seen the video of the Pfizer executive stumbling on her words in the EU parliament when asked whether her company’s vaccine was tested for preventing transmission of Covid-19 (reported in TCW yesterday). Sceptics on social media focused on the obvious folly of the vaccination hubris and related curtailments of livelihood. But the lack of transmissibility testing was already known, so this was not quite the revelation that was proclaimed. The real story was in the Freudian slips.
Seven to ten years is the normal period for a new vaccine to reach the market. This process is protracted because inoculation is experimentally complicated. If the vaccine is for a contagious disease, a later part of the testing should be transmissibility, through a challenge trial (in which participants are exposed to the pathogen). Clearly this was not done with the Covid-19 vaccines, which were rushed into arms on emergency approval. Primed and frightened by propaganda, the majority of the public were willing to be injected as soon as the vaccination centre doors opened. The language was compelling – ‘safe and effective’, ‘miracle of science’, ‘save granny’, etcetera.
In the EU Covid Panel on Monday, Pfizer executive Janine Small’s incoherent answer to Dutch MEP Robert Roos began: ‘Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunisation before it entered the market? No [laughs].’
Few seem to have noticed this apparent slip by Small. Being flustered, she may have simply used the wrong word – ‘immunisation’ rather than ‘transmission’. Arguably, she may have meant what she said.
Most of my career has been in mental health, where I became suspicious of Big Pharma in creating and consolidating a market for its products. The growth in use of antidepressants is based on a quasi-scientific theory of neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain (the serotonin hypothesis, recently refuted in a systematic review by psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff). Instead of curing depression, these drugs hook users for months or years, inducing chemical dependency with a nasty withdrawal syndrome.
Let’s be honest. The pharmaceutical industry has brought us life-saving treatments and helped people with otherwise debilitating conditions to lead active lives. But it is predatory in its practices. Getting one in six adults in the UK to take antidepressants, and almost as many on statins, is lucrative. Big Pharma doesn’t want you healthy or dead: it wants you to be sick or vulnerable.
Vaccines are extremely costly to develop, but there is return on investment through universal and frequent administration. Covid-19 vaccines were initially presented as a double dose. Then new variants emerged, and a booster was pushed. In the UK the fifth dose is currently being offered. Is this an emergent process, responding to incidence and immunity patterns, or is it planned?
After the Pfizer vaccine came out in December 2020, the EU signed a contract with the company for an incredible 4.5billion doses. For a population of 450million, that’s ten vials per person. In the UK the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson proudly announced his pre -purchase of 350million doses – some seven each for the adult population. A further purchase of 114million doses was announced by Sajid Javid, the then Health Secretary, just one year later.
This raises important questions. Why did the EU and the UK commit so much money to a vaccine that had not completed trials and therefore its impact on infection and transmission were unknown? Why weren’t European citizens told that they would be expected to take all of these injections? EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen declared in 2021 that Brussels was veering towards mandatory vaccination – an unprecedented assault on human rights already taken by Germany and Austria. (In the UK Mr Javid was pressing for Vaccine Passports as a condition for nightclub and venue entry.) At a press conference after the Covid Panel at which Ms Small spoke, Croatian MEP Mislav Kolakušić cast the EU’s bulk purchase as ‘the biggest corruption scandal in the history of mankind’.
My inference is that Ms Small accidentally let loose the terrible truth that Pfizer does not want immunity to Covid-19. This is not a wild conspiracy theory: it is now known that repeated jabs raise the risk of infection, and that the only remaining selling point is the claimed reduction in symptoms. Some experts, such as Belgian virologist Geert vanden Bossche and former Pfizer research chief Mike Yeadon, warned that Covid-19 vaccines would damage the immune system, and a study by Shimizu and team in Nature shows that antibody-dependent enhancement is happening, while a highly detailed 15-page peer-reviewed description of evidence that the shots cause unanticipated, far-reaching disturbances in body chemistry which link with the wide range of adverse effects reported, has been available online since April 2022.
The next segment of Small’s utterance was that ‘we had to move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market’. Tucker Carlson, interviewing MEP Roos, suggested that Pfizer was really moving ‘at the speed of not doing science’. No success had been achieved with a coronavirus vaccine in 70 years of trying, but suddenly several manufacturers had a product ready, in the case of Moderna before the pandemic had even been announced by the WHO. Small’s comment underlined the priority of profit over public safety.
Perhaps we shouldn’t pick on her, although she is well-remunerated by Pfizer as president of international development markets. But where was the company CEO Albert Bourla? A month before the EU parliamentary session, Bourla pulled out, and Small went in his place. His absence was ‘deeply regrettable’, according to Covid Panel chairwoman, Belgian MEP Kathleen van Brempt. Concerns had already been raised by MEPs about a secret deal between Pfizer and Ursula von der Leyen. Bourla was happy to take EU citizens’ money, but not to expose himself to questions by elected politicians (although he found time to attend a recent World Economic Form meeting). It’s not true, as fact-checkers argue, that the vaccines were not claimed to stop the spread of Covid-19. Bourla himself tweeted on April Fools’ Day last year that his vaccine was ‘100 per cent effective’ in preventing cases in South Africa.
Roos also asked the heads of Moderna and AstraZeneca whether they had tested for transmissibility before release, but got a more typical avoidant and obfuscating answer. Covid critic Christine Anderson, a German MEP, denounced the EU Covid Panel as a sham of due diligence. After failing to get the panel to recuse itself as incompetent, she stated afterwards at a press conference that ‘not only do the invited panellists, such as representatives of pharmaceutical companies or ministers of health from the member states, not answer any of our questions, they continue to spread disinformation about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines’.
Although the lack of transmissibility evidence in not news in itself, the implications of the Pfizer admission are potentially massive. Or at least they would be if the mainstream media covered the story. Instead, there is silence. Newspaper editors are warned against publishing criticisms of the vaccine. Ofcom is ready to pounce on any miscreants, as they are doing with Mark Steyn of GB News (while ITV’s This Morning show was not investigated for uncritically allowing guest Sara Kayat to assert that ‘after 12 days from the first vaccination of the AstraZeneca vaccine, you are 100 per cent effective against hospitalisation and death’).
As James Melville tweeted, ‘based on the scientific debunking of how the virus spreads, effectiveness of masks, lockdowns, restrictions, vaccine passports, transmission after medical procedure etc – it appears that the real spreaders of public health misinformation are the ones who promoted all of this’.
If the wider public were told that the vaccine was never tested to stop transmission, there would be an outcry. The vaccine passports imposed around the world, denying freedom of movement including entry to shops and restaurants, ‘no jab no job’ mandates and other deprivations of liberty are invalidated. This is criminal, averred Roos, and he was not alone. Neil Oliver tweeted ‘there must be criminal investigations now, and charges and trials; if not, we do not have the rule of law and all bets are off’.
We should thank Janine Small for opening more eyes to the scam.