Posted on 10/16/2022 9:08:47 PM PDT by DoodleBob
CLAIM: Pfizer admitted to the European Parliament that it had not tested the ability of its COVID-19 vaccine to prevent transmission of the virus before it entered the market, proving the company lied about this earlier in the pandemic.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. Janine Small, president of international markets at Pfizer, told the European Parliament on Monday that Pfizer did not know whether its COVID-19 vaccine prevented transmission of the virus before it entered the market in December 2020. But Pfizer never claimed to have studied the issue before the vaccine’s market release.
THE FACTS: After Small testified before the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, misleading claims about whether Pfizer knew the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine on preventing transmission spread widely on social media.
Rob Roos, a Dutch European Parliament member...tweeted: “BREAKING: In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission. ‘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. Share this video!”
...
At the hearing, Roos asked Small whether Pfizer had tested its COVID-19 vaccine for its ability to prevent transmission of the virus prior to its market release. Small answered: “No. We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.” She went on to explain why Pfizer moved quickly to develop a COVID-19 vaccine as the virus spread worldwide.
While Roos and many others framed this as a new revelation, Pfizer never claimed that its clinical trial, upon which the vaccine was authorized for use, evaluated the shot’s effect on transmission. In fact, shortly before the vaccine’s release, the company’s CEO emphasized that this was still being evaluated.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
So why was Pfizer selling it at all?
And tens of thousands of federal government workers DISMISSED for not taking this useless “vaccine”?
Ans Djokovic banned from entering this country let alone take part in the US Open for refusing to take this clearly dangerous “vaccine”?
Nice try AP.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am not sure this “fact check” is factually correct. Check out Pfizer’s FDA Emergency Use application, I believe it says “to treat and prevent transmission” or words to that effect.
But all this still misses the point. It’s not so much what Pfizer did or didn’t say, rather it is what the vast majority of health authorities and politicians and media said - including Fauci. They basically claimed you needed the jab to prevent spread even though most thoughtful people could see in front of their eyes that it did no such thing.
So why didn't a very high Pfizer official like Janine Small know about it in her appearance at the EU Parliament and said the exact opposite?
And why are most new infections coming from the vaccinated?
Media be like Pretzels during Oktoberfest.
Harmeet explains what can and can’t be done:
VIDEO: 3m54s: Fox News: The Next Reovlution: Harmeet Dhillon: There should be justice for those impacted by vaccine mandates
Presenter: Steve Hilton
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6313869007112
the six mentions of “transmission” in the Authorization:
20 Nov 2020: FDA: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product
Review Memorandum
6.2. Unknown Benefits/Data Gaps...
Vaccine effectivenes against transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from
individuals who are infected despite vaccination. Demonstrated high efficacy against
symptomatic COVID-19 may translate to overall prevention of transmission in populations with
high enough vaccine uptake, though it is possible that if efficacy against asymptomatic infection
were lower than efficacy against symptomatic infection, asymptomatic cases in combination with
reduced mask-wearing and social distancing could result in significant continued transmission.
Additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization
will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and
transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection...
8. Overall Summary and Recommendation...
Potential benefits that could be further evaluated but are not necessary to support an EUA include prevention of COVID-19 in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, prevention of mortality and long-term complications of COVID-19, reduction in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduction of SARSCoV-2 transmission...
https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
one big scam.
The Real Anthony Fauci Movie (Trailer 6m)
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer/
read this elsewhere - not sure what’s required:
BEGINNING OCTOBER 18TH FOR 10 DAYS ONLY YOU CAN SEE IT EXCLUSIVELY FOR FREE AND ONLY ON THIS PAGE (THE URL ABOVE)
I was one who believed that lie. The CDC also repeated that lie. When people got vaccinated, people thought they were able to kiss their mom without passing the COVID. They thought the hygiene measures were over and they could again live life like before the epidemic. Methinks this could be lawsuits of an existential threat to Pfizer.
I looked, but could not find, any Pfizer EUA request form. I did find the Pfizer press release on the day they submitted the request, and on the FDA.gov site I found the FDA EUA Approval announcement. The Pfizer request is not found on the FDA site.
Still, the FDA Approval letter restates most of what was in the Pfizer press release. In addition, the FDA approval memo states this (underlining mine for emphasis):
6.2. Unknown Benefits/Data GapsThis would suggest that the AP fact-check is technically correct that it was known that transmissibility was not studied, but assumptions were made about the effects of high efficacy on transmissibility of the virus.Duration of protection
As the interim and final analyses have a limited length of follow-up, it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.
...
Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination. Demonstrated high efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 may translate to overall prevention of transmission in populations with high enough vaccine uptake, though it is possible that if efficacy against asymptomatic infection were lower than efficacy against symptomatic infection, asymptomatic cases in combination with reduced mask-wearing and social distancing could result in significant continued transmission. Additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection.
However, the FDA also said that they could not determine the effects of the vaccine beyond a 2-month period, so assumptions about high efficacy reduction in transmissibility of the virus from symptomatic COVID-19 may have been overly optimistic.
-PJ
It is correct that (1) A Pfizer executive did testify before the European Parliament that Pfizer did not know whether the vaccines prevented transmission at the start of vaccine sales and distribution, and (2) In its published phase 3 trial report, Pfizer did not claim to have tested (or even designed the trial to test) for prevention of transmission—and publicity right around the first Emergency Use Authorization was careful to state that reduction of symptoms (actually of “mild” symptoms) was what the vaccine had (supposedly) been shown to provide.
But that does not mean that Pfizer did not lie about what the vaccine could or would do.
What AP leaves out is that Pfizer through its CEO had promised limited or no transmission, including protection of society by “herd immunity” through vaccination already in August 2020, as well as in the months after the roll out. See for example the videos and commentary at https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/yes-pfizer-marketed-the-vaccines.
What the AP also knows (or has reason to know) is that big pharma, as a rule, simply does not share results of tests with negative results (or even admit they were run), and does not run trials that are known or expected to produce negative results. So Pfizer saying (or claiming) that they did not test for preventing infection and spread is really Pfizer admitting that they knew or expected that the vaccine would not prevent infection and spread.
AP: Always Propaganda
Why, I never thought to put the vaccine in my transmission. I thought you just put it in your body.
Regards,
AP provides a helpful, self-aggrandizing, fact-check statement:
"This is part of AP's effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP."
Thx for the link and info.
one big scam.
Always has been.
So many people totally screwed.
“Speed of Science”?
I was unaware that ‘science’ had constant velocity.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/goldinmelissa
Check out the backround of one of the do-called fact checkers.
This was her last job...
https://www.newsguardtech.com/
...so-called...
But be sure to check out NewsGuard.
Holy crap.
VERDICT: The lie wasn’t chiefly Pfizer’s. This “revelation” merely highlighted the fact that Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world were making outrageous, false claims not based on science but on politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.