Tag Archives: Pfizer

Ron Paul, Congressman of 30 Years, Banned on Facebook After Quoting Pfizer CEO

By Matt Agorist

Though the fact-checking madness began long before COVID-19, over the last two years, fact-checking has seemingly been weaponized to defend the establishment’s narrative only. Challenge the status quo and you will be censored into oblivion by the system’s praetorian guard — never mind the fact that they have been wrong countless times.

One of the most egregious “fact checks” happened recently after Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla made a statement during an interview with Yahoo Finance on January 10. Speaking in reference to the Omicron variant of COVID-19, Bourla said, “We know that the two doses of a vaccine offer very limited protection, if any.”

Naturally, this statement from the CEO of a vaccine company that manufactures the jab which many Americans were forced to take against their will in order to keep their jobs or go out in public, drew much deserved attention. Many folks called out the CEO for his comments in April in which he stated that the “Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!”

Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%! https://t.co/E2ksTJSopU

— Albert Bourla (@AlbertBourla) April 1, 2021

As people began to compare these two statements — one claiming 100% efficacy, with another claiming two doses may not work at all — the praetorian guard, aka the fact-checking army, came to the rescue to conduct damage control.

Because Bourla did in fact state that the vaccine was 100% effective in April only to claim 9 months later that it may not be effective at all, the fact-checkers couldn’t claim this was false. Instead, Reuters claimed that anyone who pointed out Bourla’s most recent statement was “missing context” when quoting the CEO because his comments about offering “very limited protection, if any,” were made specifically in regard to the Omicron variant.

VERDICT
Missing context. During an interview on Jan. 10, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot offered “very limited protection” against COVID-19 infection with the Omicron variant. He was not talking about protection against infection by other variants of the coronavirus.

This statement is true and the carefully chosen wording makes it impossible to dispute. A win for Bourla, loss for anyone who quoted him.

Let’s forget about the fact that the federal government did not detail the efficacy of the jab against specific variants when it mandated vaccines through OSHA. Let’s also forget that New York, San Francisco, and the myriad of other municipalities who have mandated the jab for access to public places also make no mention of efficacy against all the different variants while compelling the medical procedure. This is apparently not important to them.

What is important, however, is protecting the image of Pfizer and making sure no one becomes “vaccine-hesitant” based on misconstrued statements or misinformation. Right?

Moving forward, we will have to specify the exact variant of the covid-19 virus to which the big pharma shills are referring in regard to the vaccine if we are to challenge or quote anything they say — lest we get the ban hammer. Just ask former Congressman Ron Paul what happens when you quote the Pfizer CEO and leave out Omicron.

Paul was banned from Facebook for 90 days for sharing the video of Bourla, and titling it “Pfizer CEO: From “100% Effective in Preventing Covid” To “Very Limited Protection, If Any.” All of this is factual, but leaving out Omicron left the former Congressman open for attack, and attacked he was.

“My speech crime? I shared an interview with the CEO of Pfizer,” Dr. Paul wrote in an email.

“The so-called “missing context” that Facebook’s “fact-checkers” claim justifies banning me from interacting with over a million followers is that the drug company CEO was “only” referring to the Omicron variant that makes up 95% of new COVID cases in the United States,” he said, adding that “this was my second sanctioning by Facebook in just over a year.”

The idea that a former Congressman of three decades can be wiped off of social media for simply sharing a video of the Pfizer CEO should be shocking. Unfortunately, however, it is the norm, and it is to be expected, especially considering the cozy relationship between the fact-checkers and the industry.

In fact, their relationship is far more than just cozy. In 2014, James C. Smith — who was then the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Thomson Reuters and served on its Board of Directors — was appointed to the Board of Directors to the Corporate Governance and Science and Technology Committees at Pfizer.

Thomson Reuters CEO James C. Smith elected to Pfizer Board of Directors http://t.co/ZeZkq36ida

— Pfizer Inc. (@pfizer_news) June 26, 2014

That’s right, after his appointment to the Board of Directors for Pfizer, Smith remained the CEO for Reuters for the next six years. Though he retired from the news agency in 2020, Smith remains on the Pfizer board. He is also still the current Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

But that’s not all. Smith is also on the international business council of the World Economic Forum and the international advisory boards of the British American Business Council and, last but not least, none other than the infamous Atlantic Council.

Certainly there has to be a conflict of interests somewhere in all these entanglements, right? If Reuters is conducting fact checks for Pfizer’s benefit, it might be beneficial if people knew the tightly woven connection between these two multi-billion dollar corporations, right?

It certainly creates a motive for Smith to remove his LinkedIn profile which detailed all these connections. Whether or not this was the reason it was removed is unclear, but it was there one day and gone the next.

For now, there is no recourse and Reuters has the final word… Actual discourse be damned.

Source: The Free Thought Project

‘Paramount Importance’: Judge Orders FDA to Release Pfizer Vaccine Docs this Year, Not Over Next 75 Years

Score one for transparency.

A federal judge in Texas on Thursday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make public the data it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, imposing a dramatically accelerated schedule that should result in the release of all information within about eight months.

That’s roughly 75 years and four months faster than the FDA said it could take to complete a Freedom of Information Act request by a group of doctors and scientists seeking an estimated 450,000 pages of material about the vaccine.

The court “concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump in 2019.

The FDA didn’t dispute it had an obligation to make the information public but argued that its short-staffed FOIA office only had the bandwidth to review and release 500 pages a month.

While Pittman recognized “the ‘unduly burdensome’ challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA,” in his four-page order, he resoundingly rejected the agency’s suggested schedule.

Rather than producing 500 pages a month — the FDA’s proposed timeline — he ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 a month. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be public by the end of the summer rather than, say, the year 2097.

Even if the FDA may not see it this way, I think Pittman did the agency — and the country — a big favor by expediting the document production.

I’ve been chronicling this fight since November and have heard from dozens of readers who said they felt something was suspicious, even nefarious, in the FDA’s proposed slo-mo timeline. Making the information public as soon as possible may help assuage the concerns of vaccine skeptics and convince them the product is safe.

Pittman in his order nodded to this as well, including a quote from the late senator John McCain, who said that excessive administrative secrecy “feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.”

Still, the FDA is likely to be hard-pressed to process 55,000 pages a month.

The office that reviews FOIA requests has just 10 employees, according to a declaration filed with the court by Suzann Burk, who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management. Burk said it takes eight minutes a page for a worker “to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request.”

At that rate, the 10 employees would have to work non-stop 24 hours a day, seven days a week to produce the 55,000 pages a month (and would still fall a bit short).

But as lawyers for the plaintiffs Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency pointed out in court papers, the FDA as of 2020 had 18,062 employees. Surely some can be dispatched to pitch in at the FOIA office.

Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad, who represents the plaintiffs, in an email said the decision “came down on the side of transparency and accountability.”

His clients — a group that includes more than 200 doctors, scientists, professors and public health professionals, including some who have publicly questioned the efficacy of lockdown policies, mask mandates and the vaccine itself — have pledged to publish all the information they receive from the FDA on their website.

The Justice Department, which represented the FDA in the litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday evening. Pfizer, not a party to the suit, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pittman in his order made clear that the FOIA request, even if burdensome, has to be a priority for the FDA.

Quoting from remarks made during the hearing before him on December 14, he wrote that “there may not be a ‘re important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated,” and assuring the public that the vaccine was not “‘rush[ed] on behalf of the United States.'”

Phizer, Gates Foundation are Funding Most Mainstream News Outlets

Ryan DeLarme
December 5th, 2021

As “fifteen days to flatten the curve” becomes months and years of COVID  psychosis, more and more people are putting together the enormous, grim puzzle of how all this came to be and why it continues to this day. Most recently, we at the Underground Newswire have compiled lists of talking heads, television shows, online publications, and entire television networks that are now in the pockets of Big-Pharma and a certain “philanthropist”.

First, we have Pfizer, who sponsors an alarming amount of establishment (CFR connected) news programs, including but not limited to:

  • Good Morning America
  • CBS Healthwatch 
  • Anderson Cooper 360
  • ABC News Nightline
  • Making a Difference (NBC)
  • CNN Tonight
  • Early Start (CNN)
  • Erin Burnett Out Front
  • This Week with George Stephanopoulos (ABC)
  • CBS Sports Update
  • Meet the Press
  • CBS This Morning
  • 60 Minutes

This list is not comprehensive but may explain why the mainstream refuses to report on the endless inpouring of criticisms, bad press, and antitrust lawsuits filed against the monstrous pharmaceutical company. 

Pfizer’s not the only big-money interest that’s wrapped its tendrils around the throat of the media, everyone’s favorite little creep Bill Gates and his foundation have donated absurd amounts of money to media outlets in an effort to stoke the flames of panic, which just so happens to have fueled the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. As the saying goes: “You gotta spend money to make money!”

Here’s a small taste of networks and publications that the Gates Foundation has donated to:

FDA Wants Until 2076 To Fully Release Pfizer Vaccine Data: Lawsuit

The Free Thought Project
November 18, 2021

The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.

As explained in a prior article, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

With that promise in mind, in August and immediately following approval of the vaccine, more than 30 academics, professors, and scientists from this country’s most prestigious universities requested the data and information submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to license its COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA’s response?  It produced nothing. So, in September, my firm filed a lawsuit against the FDA on behalf of this group to demand this information. To date, almost three months after it licensed Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA still has not released a single page. Not one.

Instead, two days ago, the FDA asked a federal judge to give it until 2076 to fully produce this information. The FDA asked the judge to let it produce the 329,000+ pages of documents Pfizer provided to the FDA to license its vaccine at the rate of 500 pages per month, which means its production would not be completed earlier than 2076.  The FDA’s promise of transparency is, to put it mildly, a pile of illusions [ZH, we note that the FDA justifies this by claiming that the rate of 500 pages per month “is consistent with processing schedules entered by courts across the country in FOIA cases,” and blames the plaintiffs for “its own broad FOIA request”].

It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021).   Taking the FDA at its word, it conducted an intense, robust, thorough, and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure. While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public. 

So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability.  Gives it billions of dollars.  Makes Americans take its product.  But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy.  Who does the government work for?

The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.  Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so.  But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure.  Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!

The FDA’s Cushy Relationship With The Pharmaceutical Industry

Ryan DeLarme,
September 12th, 2021

People are rushing to tout the recent FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine as if it were some great scientific victory. The troubling part is that the institution’s shady history seems to be all but forgotten.

No matter how you slice it, the Pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry’s larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield. 

When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association, respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.

The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush their products to market and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA Commissioners landing on the boards of these Pharmaceutical companies. 

Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA Commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer’s board of directors.  Gottlieb’s predecessor, DR. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of Directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, the former FDA Commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering; the venture capital firm that launched Moderna. 

The list goes on and on, in fact, 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners —representing nearly four decades of agency leadership— have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception was David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Criticism towards the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of whatever stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.