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

...in her testimony, under oath, "Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets" indicated before the EU Parliament that Pfizer did not test (or did not know) if the vaccine prevented transmission.

Pfizer didn’t know if Covid vaccine stopped transmission before rollout | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site
(video in link)

when asked: “Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?" (...) "If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”

She answered: “Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh,” she said.

“Uh, these, um, 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. I think Dr Bourla, even though he’s not here, would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”

My opinion? Well I agree 100% with the member of EU Parliament, whose response is:
“Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others’. Now this turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed.”

Though, then again, "cheap" may not be the best word for this lie, given Pfizer's profits, how much the lie was repeated by governments and medical professionals the world over who insisted 'the science is settled' (and mandated vaccination based on it), and how many more people died as result of thinking the vaccines made them safe...

 

But the real question is, what should be done about it? Pfizer has already been fined $2.3B (in a single case, and its not the only one) for 'intent to defraud or mislead' regarding their products. It doesn't seem to have corrected the problem...

 

Pfizer Made $36.8 Billion from Covid-19 Vaccine in 2021 (greekreporter.com)

Pfizer, the international pharmaceuticals giant helmed by Thessaloniki-born Dr. Albert Bourla, made a staggering $36.8 billion on its first-in-the-world coronavirus vaccine last year.

Axios reports that Pfizer expects to rake in $32 billion in vaccine sales in 2022 as well as $22 billion just from the company’s COVID pill Paxlovid.
​

Thats an estimated $100B profit in 2021 and 2022 just on the covid "vaccine". No telling how much they really made, or how much they will make in the future off of US taxpayer funded research and development.

Unless things change drastically in DC, Pfizer will make a gigantic fortune of off covid even with lawsuits.

 

Do you understand how vaccines work? Preventing transmission is NOT the intention of a vaccine.

 

Do you know the details of the case? Do you know when the settlement was reached?

 

Thats a seperate issue to be taken up with our corporate mockingbird media and our govts that instituted mandates and other policy based on the notion that the vaccine prevented transmission. But the primary issue is that Pfizer itself claimed their vaccine did precisely that.

"Data suggest Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine prevents asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection"

Real-World Evidence Confirms High Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Profound Public Health Impact of Vaccination One Year After Pandemic Declared | Pfizer
(www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/real-world-evidence-confirms-high-effectiveness-pfizer)

 

Is this about right?

September 2, 2009
"In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug. Once the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs, doctors can prescribe them off-label for any use, but makers can't market them for anything other than approved uses.

Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony violation for promoting off-label uses of Bextra, such as for pain relief after knee replacement surgery. At the FDA's request, Pfizer pulled Bextra off the market in April 2005 because its risks, including a rare, sometimes fatal, skin reaction, outweighed its benefits. It had been approved only for treating rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and menstrual pain.

As part of the settlement, Pfizer PFE will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

Pfizer also has agreed to pay $1 billion in civil damages and penalties to compensate federal health-care programs for false claims submitted as a result of its marketing Bextra and the other four drugs for off-label use or at unapproved dosages."

Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for illegal marketing in off-label drug case - ABC News (go.com)

 

Pfizer's History of Fraud, Corruption, and Using Nigerian Children as 'Human Guinea Pigs'




https://kanekoa.substack.com/p/pfizers-history-of-fraud-corruption

 

They know and they are lying as usual.

 

So a settlement from over 10 years ago about advertising drugs for off label use is somehow pertinent to the COVID vaccine?

 

Do you know the difference between infection and transmission?

 

OMG, that is a grossly inaccurate statement.

Do you work for Phauci or Pharma?

(It's not a vaccine)

 

OK Mr. Doctor, in your own words, tell us why my statement is inaccurate and why "it's not a vaccine"

 

Difference? Transmission is when the infected infect others. Thats not much of a difference...

 

Yes. Its called criminal history. Pfizer has a criminal history of defrauding and endangering consumers and the govt with its pharmaceutical products.

 

Saying there is not much a difference is the reason why this whole thread is pointless.

 

Endangering? Not even close.
Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs off label. Drug manufacturers are not allowed to advertise off label. That is what Pfizer did. It endangered no one.

 

yes, but they knew it reduced hospitalization and death - the key reason it was released

the spreading part is up to each humans immune system, all a vaccine can do is teach the body to recognize it, it's up to the bodies immune system from that point on

our immune systems have limitations, just the reality of it, doesn't mean that vaccine was not doing what it was designed to do


anti-vaxers still think vaccines work like Condoms, it seems

 

Well you're in it, presumably of your own will, so it can't be that pointless. I suggest making a point yourself. In case you're drawing a blank, you could start by explaining how Pfizer advertizing their vaccine as 'preventing asymptomatic infection' is meanigfully different from preventing transmission.

 

Also, just to be precise, the case against Pfizer was civil, not criminal. There is no "criminal history"

 

I guess that depends on whether doctors should be expected to prescribe a drug as advertized by the manufacturer or whether they should be expected to know everything about how the drug works on their own. Which do you think?

 

That's simple. Transmission is simply passing the virus from one person to another. If you have enough virus (your "viral load") then you can transmit it to another person regardless of whether or not you have an asymptomatic infection or not.

You take the vaccine is to prevent YOU from getting sick (or reduce how badly you get sick). You don't take it to prevent you from transmitting it to others.

 

Thats a technicality. Rarely is a corporation charged with a crime, due to a corporation not having a physical body that can be imprisonned. This is the primary cause of corporations getting away with so much crime (or, technically speaking, illegal acts that would be crimes if individuals had comitted them). If I did what Pfizer did, it would be a crime. So Pfizer committed crime in every way that matters to the context of this discussion.

Somebody at Pfizer decided to advertize their drugs in a way that endangered people. Just because their corporate structure sheilded that individual or individuals from official punishment isnt a very good argument in favor of Pfizer...

 

Doctors are expected to up on the latest research on a medication before prescribing it. If the FDA approves a drug to fight hyperthyroidism and after months (or even years) of use in the public research shows that the drug is also effective in lowering cholesterol then Doctors can prescribe it to people with high cholesterol. The drug manufacturer, however, cannot advertise it as a cholesterol medication until the FDA approves it for that use. That is what Pfizer was fined for.

It did not endanger the public in any way.

 

Are you really gonna stand on the 'using a drug for other than its designed and tested purpose isn't dangerous' hill?