In a stunning admission, a leading figure at Pfizer stated in early October that the company did not know whether its “vaccine” or “shot,” developed with BioNTech, would prevent transmission of the virus that reportedly causes COVID-19 before it entered the market in December 2020.
Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international development markets, testified before the European Parliament’s special committee on COVID-19 after the company’s CEO Dr. Albert Bourla, pulled out of his appointment to testify.
A Dutch Member of Parliament (MEP) wanted to know about the impact of the shots on the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which reportedly causes the disease COVID-19. Rob Roos, an avid opponent of the European Union’s (E.U.’s) COVID-19 passport scheme, asked point blank: “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?”
Small answered that the U.S. pharmaceutical giant did not know whether the shots prevented transmission before market release and explained why Pfizer moved quickly to develop the shots as SARS-CoV-2 reportedly spread worldwide. She said, more specifically:
Regarding the question around, ‘did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market?’ No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk.
Small didn’t exactly make a revelation. Yet several E.U. nations enforced policies requiring people to show proof of COVID shots just to live their lives, including the right to attend a school or enter a restaurant—one of the strictest being Italy which eventually saw violent protests.
Otherwise referred to as the “E.U. Digital COVID Certificate,” this scheme was forced upon E.U. residents and citizens when introduced in July 2021. Many were sold on the idea that the inoculated were protected from becoming sick with COVID-19 so they could socialize with other people—merely participate in public life—without the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2.
Roos, alongside a relatively small group of MEPs, has persistently vocalized opposition to COVID passports; he tweeted a day after the committee:
“Get vaccinated for others” was always a lie. The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. The world needs to know.
With the intent of sharing his video as far and wide as possible, Roos firmly remarked:
If you don’t get vaccinated, you’re anti-social! This is what the Dutch Prime Minister and Health Minister told us. You don’t get vaccinated just for yourself, but also for others—you do it for all of society. That’s what they said. Today [at the COVID-19 committee hearing] this turns out to be complete nonsense.
It’s always been complete nonsense because even Bourla admitted it was unclear whether inoculated people could transmit SARS-CoV-2 in a December 2020 interview with NBC News. “I think this is something that needs to be examined,” he had said. “We are not certain about that right now.”
The COVID shots were developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and granted emergency use authorization (EUA) in the United States in December 2020. Later, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fully approved this product marketed as ‘Comirnaty’ for individuals aged at least 16 years old in August 2021 and for children 12 through 15 in July 2022.
According to Pfizer in April 2021, before FDA approval, the shots were “100% effective in preventing severe disease” as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “95.3% effective in preventing severe disease” as defined by the FDA.
Indeed, the CDC asserts that the shots significantly reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death for those infected with SARS-CoV-2 and adds that “you are protected best from COVID-19 when you stay up to date with the recommended vaccinations, including recommended boosters.”
The FDA uploaded a briefing document in December 2020 detailing the design and testing of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots; it states that the clinical trial study had primary and secondary endpoints regarding “vaccine” efficacy.
One of the primary endpoints included efficacy against a COVID-19 ‘incidence’ or case at least 7 days after the second jab as confirmed after laboratory-based testing.
Three secondary endpoints included the efficacy against a COVID-19 case at least 14 days after the second jab as confirmed after laboratory-based testing, severe COVID-19, and CDC-defined COVID-19.
For a primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was a “positive SARS-CoV-2” result following a viral diagnostic test, such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) within 4 days of a symptomatic period. A symptom included at least one of the following: fever; new or increased cough; new or increased shortness of breath; chills; new or increased muscle pain; new loss of taste or smell; sore throat; diarrhea; vomiting.
For a secondary efficacy endpoint, the FDA includes additional symptoms as defined by the CDC. Furthermore, severe COVID-19 is defined as a confirmed COVID-19 case with at least one of the additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death.
In summary, the design of Pfizer’s study concerning efficacy endpoints focuses on preventing a systematic COVID-19 case instead of preventing infection—and thus transmission—of SARS-CoV-2 altogether.
Even the purpose of vaccination has been modified (diminished?) Defined by the CDC as late as 2018, its age-old purpose is “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Yet, the latest definition substitutes ‘protection’ for ‘immunity.’
Moreover, the term “vaccine” has changed (devalued?) For example, the CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to the latest “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
Lo and behold, since the CDC has now updated that “public health experts are seeing decreases in the protection COVID-19 vaccines provide over time,” it is now recommending “COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, and boosters for everyone 5 years and older, if eligible.”
In fact, Pfizer announced in mid-October that the company had received EUA from the FDA for the “booster dose” in children 5 through 11 years of age, as developed with BioNTech for the reported “Omicron” variant of SARS-CoV-2.
Well, isn’t that just so conveniently—profitable?
But things haven’t always been so great for Pfizer.
The company’s annual and quarterly revenue shows that between 2011-2012, 2014-2015 and 2020 alone, it was persistently in the red negative for year-over-year (YoY) quarterly growth. Its annual revenue dropped by approximately $12 billion in 2018 compared to the previous year. Pfizer’s annual revenue for 2019 was around $40 billion, a 0.2 percent increase from 2018. The year 2020 was a tad better, with approximately $41 billion.
Come 2021, and Pfizer had hit a double whammy with annual revenue of around $81 billion. Since then, the company has been on a roll: its revenue for the 12 months ending June 30, 2022 was about $101 billion, an 83.74 percent increase YoY.
In other words, Pfizer had been chugging along year after year, trying to recoup losses. But then, governments’ response toward a reported “novel” coronavirus outbreak became an absolute game-changer for one of the oldest biotechnology corporations in the United States.
Talking of a government response, let us not forget that President Joe Biden said in July 2021, “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” However, he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 a year later despite being fully jabbed with booster shots.
The White House’s medical advisor and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci—who is to step down in December after more than 50 years at the National Institutes of Health—has also given statements on the COVID shots’ efficacy akin to a rollercoaster ride.
Appearing on CBS News in May 2021, Fauci explained that even though there are “breakthrough infections” in jabbed individuals, the level of SARS-CoV-2 virus within their body is “so low it makes it extremely unlikely” that they’re going to transmit it. Fauci added that jabbed people become “dead ends” for the coronavirus to spread.
In August 2021, amidst the reported outbreak of the “Delta” variant of SARS-CoV-2, Fauci said on the same news network that jabbed people “almost invariably” experience minimal or no symptoms with “breakthrough infections.” However, he added that new research shows they can still spread the coronavirus because they carry roughly the same amount of viral material in the top part of their throat as the unjabbed—then he blamed the latter group for “propagating this outbreak.”
In the same month, Fauci spoke to journalist Katie Couric and clarified, “The vaccine is doing exactly what we wanted it to do. It’s preventing people from getting seriously ill. That’s the reason why you get vaccinated.”
Oh, so the COVID shots were never meant to prevent infection, but rather, sickness; this completely undervalues a shared understanding of the goal of getting vaccinated—to prevent viral infection.
Indeed, since the rollout of the COVID shots—be it the version developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson—there has been no shortage of studies demonstrating its waning efficacy against infection or even reinfection, especially given the reported outbreak of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.
For example, according to one study reported by the Los Angeles Times in November 2021, the efficacy of all three COVID shots among hundreds of thousands of veterans dropped between 35 percent and 85 percent; it lost effectiveness in protecting against death in veterans 65 and over after only 3 months of being fully jabbed.
Actually, if you care to indulge, here is a mere selection from a list of studies highlighting the drooping effectiveness of the COVID shots, which arguably is an excellent reason to advocate for additional “booster” doses among nursing home residents (August 27, 2021); adults (August 27, 2021); adults (September 17, 2021); Israeli adolescents (January 05, 2022); adults (February 25, 2022); U.K. adults (April 21, 2022).
In summary, such publications conclude that these shots provide “protection” for nearly 6 months, after which a solution is proposed along the lines expressed in the large study on veterans:
It is imperative to implement public health interventions, such as strategic testing for control of outbreaks, vaccine passports, employment-based vaccine mandates, vaccination campaigns for eligible children as well as adults, and consistent messaging from public health leadership in the face of increased risk of infection from the Delta and other emerging variants.
Given all the above razzmatazz, so why did Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla have an appointment to testify before the European Parliament’s special committee on COVID-19?
The decision followed after the European Court of Auditors published a report in mid-September, raising eyebrows and questions about communication between Bourla and the E.U. chief, a.k.a. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding a contract worth multibillions of euros.
The report reveals that von der Leyen had been directly involved in early negotiations for up to 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech shots, eventually finalized in May 2021. Even The New York Times in April 2021 reported on a seemingly cozy relationship between Bourla and von der Leyen, with the two exchanging text messages over the contract. However, this sort of communication departs from the expected process, where a joint negotiating team of officials from the Commission and member E.U. countries hold exploratory talks over a contract.
Since then, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has opened an investigation into the E.U.’s COVID shots purchases, once again bringing von der Leyen’s role into the limelight on this matter.
The EPPO, mind you, is an independent E.U. body responsible for investigating and charging financial crimes, such as fraud, money laundering, corruption and secret backroom dealings.
Big Pharma. The Big Drug Industry has proven to be one of the most profitable sectors since records began—among the underground of the Mafia and maybe, among those elected to the highest office in a government.
Content syndicated from Dear Rest of America with permission
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!