reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. They request a clear yes or no answer and the data to be shared with the committee. The response states that they did not have prior knowledge of stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market and had to rely on scientific research. Another speaker expresses outrage, claiming that people were pressured to get vaccinated based on the false belief that it would protect others.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Speaker 0 asked for the impossible: to develop a vaccine in 8 months instead of 10 years without cutting corners. They emphasized safety. Speaker 1 questioned Pfizer's transparency in mutating COVID viruses. Speaker 0 stressed the importance of vaccination for public health. Pfizer's CEO discussed vaccine production and effectiveness. They thanked the US government for support. The CEO highlighted the vaccine's 95.6% efficacy. The conversation ended with a call for public vaccination.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They wanted a clear yes or no answer and requested the data to be shared with the committee. In response, it was stated that no, they did not have knowledge about stopping transmission before the vaccine entered the market. They had to act quickly.

The speaker claims Pfizer documents reveal the COVID vaccines didn't work to stop the virus a month after rollout in November 2020. They allege Pfizer knew the third most common side effect was COVID. Within months, Pfizer supposedly needed to hire 2,400 staffers to process adverse event reports. The speaker asserts Pfizer and the FDA knew in May 2021 that the vaccines caused heart damage in 35 minors within a week of injection, but this wasn't disclosed to parents until August 2021. The speaker states the CDC initially claimed the injection materials stayed at the injection site, but Pfizer knew they biodistributed throughout the body within 48 hours, settling in the brain, liver, adrenals, spleen, and ovaries. Pathologist Dr. Robert Chandler allegedly found no mechanism for the body to eliminate lipid nanoparticles from the ovaries, leading to accumulation with each injection.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The White House blames a few bad actors for spreading online misinformation that is causing harm. It is important to get vaccinated not only for personal protection but also to safeguard society. A member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands recently had a viral exchange with a Pfizer executive regarding whether the vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before being released. The executive clarified that the vaccines were extensively tested in clinical trials, but their specific effectiveness in stopping transmission was not known prior to market entry.

Speaker 0 questions understanding of vaccine causing myocarditis, mentioning Pfizer's awareness. Speaker 1 doubts if vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before market release. Speaker 0 believes vaccination was optional, not forced.

Thank you, Senator Canavan. Did Pfizer test if the COVID-19 vaccine could stop or reduce virus transmission before its late 2020 approval? To bring the vaccine to patients, we needed to show it was safe and effective in preventing illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The primary goal was to protect the vaccinated individual. I appreciate that, but my question remains unanswered. On December 3, 2020, your CEO stated that it was uncertain if vaccinated individuals could carry and spread the virus. Was he correct that Pfizer did not know if the vaccine could reduce transmission? We designed our clinical programs with regulatory agencies to demonstrate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing infections. Okay, let’s move on.

Speaker 1 claims that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They assert that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 states this is not just their opinion, but can be verified by anyone who examines the FDA website, specifically the package inserts and underlying clinical trial documents.

Pfizer was asked if they tested whether their COVID-19 vaccine could reduce or stop the transmission of the virus before its approval. The Pfizer representative stated that the primary purpose of the vaccine was to protect the person who received it and prevent illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The senator then referred to a statement made by Pfizer's CEO on December 3, 2020, where he mentioned uncertainty about the vaccine's ability to reduce transmission. The Pfizer representative reiterated that their clinical programs were designed to demonstrate the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing infections. Due to time constraints, the senator moved on without a definitive answer.

The speakers discuss the importance of vaccination in reducing transmission and returning to normalcy. They express confidence in the vaccines' ability to prevent illness and transmission. They emphasize the need for people to get vaccinated for their own protection and to break the chain of transmission. Vaccinated individuals are seen as dead ends for the virus, preventing further spread. However, it is mentioned that initial data on vaccine effectiveness against transmission was limited at the time of emergency use authorization. A question is raised about whether the Pfizer vaccine was tested for transmission prevention before its release, to which the response is that they had to move quickly based on scientific progress.

Speaker 0 acknowledges reports of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccine but seems unsure about the mechanism behind it. Speaker 1 asks if the vaccine was tested for its ability to stop virus transmission before being released. Speaker 2 questions if people were forced to get vaccinated to keep their jobs and asks Speaker 0 to retract their statement. Speaker 0 clarifies that everyone had the choice to get vaccinated or not, and they don't believe anyone was forced.

Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier. Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.

Speaker 0: They argue that because the vaccine is classified as such, they don’t have to worry about being sued. They claim immunity from liability is dependent on there being no fraud, and there clearly was fraud. Speaker 1: They say there is fraud. They note that immunity from liability depends on fraud, and in light of that, it matters. They explain that there was fraud. Speaker 0: Expresses surprise and asks for caveats about fraud. Acknowledges there were caveats. Speaker 1: Confirms there is fraud and says it makes the situation more interesting. Speaker 0: Asks how fraud is defined, noting that drugs were sold with multiple studies and only one was good. Speaker 1: Responds with a point about safety testing for the mRNA vaccines. States that the insufficient safety testing was done before release, and that the product injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids. There is massive contamination in the shots actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter from simian virus 40. The point is that safety testing for one drug was completed, but people were injected with something different that had other components that were not tested, which is described as fraudulent. Speaker 0: Requests an explanation of the SV40 issue for the audience. Speaker 1: Describes production techniques used to generate the product. Explains that a plasmid, a circular piece of DNA, was used to produce the product in vats, with bacteria performing the production, later coated in lipid nanoparticle. There is a requirement to purify DNA and set standards for DNA contamination, with limits that cannot be exceeded. In this case, the problem isn’t only poor quality control but that there was a more painstaking way to produce the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all. Consequently, leftover material in vials injected into people contained DNA contamination across the board. Kevin McKernan tested vials, finding DNA contamination in the samples. Speaker 1: Explains that the DNA left over includes the SV40 promoter, a genetic trigger from simian virus 40, which is known to be carcinogenic. Since this promoter is left in the vials from injections given to people, it challenges the claim that the mRNA shots could not integrate into the genome. While acknowledging that there are cellular processes such as reverse transcription, the speaker asserts that even the claim of “no DNA” is false because there is DNA in the vials, specifically DNA with the SV40 promoter, a genetic engineering tool with carcinogenic potential. The speaker concludes that this appears to be fraud: injecting a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was conducted with a product produced by a different process. Speaker 0: Reiterates the conclusion: you can’t inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.

The speaker discusses the decision-making process for the COVID vaccine, highlighting the role of Operation Warp Speed and the lack of FDA involvement. They praise the collaboration between NIH and FDA, emphasizing the dedication of the team. The speaker commends the public-private partnership and the effectiveness of Operation Warp Speed. They express a wish for earlier financial support from the government for the industry.

The speaker cross-examined Dr. Lourenco about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. They compared it to previous vaccines like pneumonia and shingles, asking if the same rigorous testing process was followed. Dr. Lourenco confirmed that animal trials and two phases of human trials were conducted for those vaccines before approval. However, she admitted that the final phase of human trials, which has been completed for all other vaccines in Canada, was not done for the COVID-19 vaccines. She tried to justify this by mentioning a new process.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The speaker acknowledges that the vaccine did not completely stop the spread or infection, but clarifies that initially it did for the Wuhan strain and the alpha strain. Early data and literature published in the New England Journal showed that those who were vaccinated and didn't get infected were not transmitting the virus to others. The vaccine had a high efficacy of up to 96% early on and this efficacy did not change over time.

The speaker asked if the Pfizer COVID vaccine was tested for stopping virus transmission before it was released. They requested a clear yes or no answer and asked for the data to be shared with the committee. The speaker then stated that they did not have knowledge about stopping immunization before the vaccine entered the market.

Speaker 1 states that no vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have been properly tested. They claim that no childhood vaccine has undergone a placebo-controlled clinical trial of sufficient duration and power to assess its safety before being injected into millions of children in America. Speaker 1 asserts this is not an opinion, but can be verified by anyone reviewing package inserts and clinical trial documents on the FDA website.

We developed vaccines, like the Ameila vaccine, in just nine months. It's fast, considering the uncertainties surrounding vaccines. Initially, we made a mistake by claiming they protect against transmission, but they actually provide limited protection. As a result, repeated vaccinations are necessary due to their relatively short lifespan.

Pfizer representatives appeared before the Senate Committee to address questions about their COVID-19 vaccine. The committee asked if Pfizer tested whether the vaccine could reduce virus transmission before its approval. Pfizer stated that their clinical trials focused on demonstrating the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in preventing illness, severe disease, and hospitalizations. The committee also questioned Pfizer's statements regarding the vaccine's ability to stop transmission. Pfizer representatives were unable to provide specific evidence for these claims and agreed to provide further information to the committee. The committee expressed concern about the discrepancy between Pfizer's statements and requested clarification on any updated statements from Pfizer officials.

Speaker 0 says they found “information like this,” such as vaccine insert paper, with “nothing printed on it,” which they call disheartening and disgusting. They add that it “just keeps happening” and claim the CDC redacts “every single word” of a 148-page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. Speaker 0 says they asked someone to print the study, and that the entire 148 pages are redacted. They ask what a study does if “there’s nothing there,” and they ask what might have been there that required redaction. Speaker 1 says they are “witnessing an active cover up” involving “a colossal consumer product safety debacle” affecting the entire world. They claim that in the United States, the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and FDA are actively involved in a cover up, and that similar cover ups are occurring in the UK with the MHRA, in Europe with European medicine agencies, and in Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Speaker 1 states that each company that puts out a product has an obligation to produce “ninety days of safety monitoring” after the product comes out, describing it as a regulatory dossier. They claim that if someone has a problem and reports it to a company like Pfizer, Pfizer must report, write down what happened, collate it into a report, and make it publicly available. Speaker 1 says that when the ninety days elapsed for Pfizer’s first vaccine approved on 12/10/2020, Pfizer “didn’t produce a report.” They add that people asked what was happening with the vaccine, and Pfizer allegedly would not disclose what happened, leading to a court case. Speaker 1 says the lawyer for the FDA stepped in to say they did not want to release Pfizer’s dossier for fifty-five years. Speaker 1 then says that after the plaintiff pushed, the Pfizer dossier “slowly” came out. They claim Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty-three deaths with their product within ninety days of release, and they say people called Pfizer in desperation watching family members die after taking the vaccine. Speaker 1 also claims Pfizer recorded “over twelve hundred” new adverse events and refers to “doctor Boden” discussing problems they say they have been grappling with. They conclude by claiming the FDA worked to cover this up and should have been regulating the company with at least monthly meetings and full disclosure about novel vaccines, described by Speaker 1 as a genetic transfer technology platform and as the first time human beings were injected with foreign genetic material in world history, after which “they were getting it full on.” Speaker 1 ends by saying “Two thirds of the world’s population took”

On COVID, there's a perception that credit isn't given where it's due. While the vaccines were developed quickly, they don't prevent infection or transmission and may have serious side effects. In hindsight, would anything be done differently? Studies on the vaccines are ongoing, and results will emerge over time. It's important to note that Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, but reports indicated that over half of the 458 pregnant women who received the vaccine experienced adverse events. The ongoing studies will help clarify these concerns.