Name: Pfizer director admits they never tested whether COVID 'vaccine' prevents transmission
Uploaded: 2022-10-12T08:09:57+00:00
Duration: 2 min 1 s
Description: Member of European Parliament Rob Roos used an official hearing to ask Pfizer director Janine Small for a straight answer to the question if Pfizer tested whether the jabs reduce or stop transmission.

1 year ago

1.49K

COVID19 vaccine VaxInjury VaxSafety VaccineMandate

Member of European Parliament Rob Roos used an official hearing to ask Pfizer director Janine Small for a straight answer to the question if Pfizer tested whether the jabs reduce or stop transmission.

The answer is crucial, because the the population was under intense pressure to get vaxxed to protect others. Protecting others was the whole argument behind the medical discrimination, segregation and the COVID pass. Those who refused to get the experimental injection were emotionally blackmailed. They were told they're selfish and cowards, that they didn't fulfill their social responsibilities, that they were granny killers.

There were other forms of blackmail too, such as the jab being a condition for employment, entry to the supermarket, or even medical care.

The Pfizer director answered that no research on the effect of the jabs on transmission was performed. Of course this was already known for a long time to anyone who did independent research, but now it's also been publicly admitted by Pfizer.

The information was already in the FDA press release of December 20, 2022:

"At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person."
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

In the remainder of her response, the Pfizer director ...

1. said that her employer had invested "$2 billion to research, develop and manufacture at risk to make sure that we were able to help with the pandemic". This is totally irrelevant to the question.
2. referred to a recent article by Imperial Collega which claimed that the 'vaccines' had saved 4 millions lives. This article uses models as the reference on what would have happened without a mass injection campaign. In fact, these are the models by the same institute as the authors. However, the models belong in the horror fiction category. They have consistently predicted at least 10x worse outcomes than occurred in reality. The models could have predicted 9 billions COVID deaths (note that there aren't even 9 billion people) and then people would claim how many billions of lives were saved through their interventions, because reality turned out to be much more benign than what the models predicted.

Watch the interaction between Rob Roos and Pfizer director Janine Small here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TXX0acEIUPcc/

Note that the director did not say "stopping transmission", but she said, "Did we know about stopping immunization before entering the market? No!". This could be a Freudian slip where she admits that the jabs have negative efficacy and cause VAIDS.

Governments like to claim that they are following the science, so if you disagree with them, you are not following the science. It was abundantly clear to those who were doing independent research, that it was in fact the governments who were anti-scientific.

Note that the official misinformation is not stopping. According to family of mine, an influential Dutch doctor called Marcel Levi recommended last Sunday on a national TV program called Buitenhof, that young people should get boosted to protect others and 'society' (protect sick care system, prevent sickness causing you to be unable to work).

Also note that a crucial argument for coerced regular vaccines is also that they protect others and lead to herd immunity. There is no scientific evidence or even a signal of truth to this claim either.