I wonder, is it now okay to be a conspiracy theorist?
On October 10, 2022, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, made a momentous admission before the European parliament.
Janine Small was asked directly at the European Union Parliament whether Pfizer knew if its vaccine fully prevented transmission of covid-19 before it was rolled out globally.
Netherlands MEP Rob Roos asked during the board hearing: “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? I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”
The senior Pfizer executive responded that they had not known.
She said: “Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation before it entered the market? No.
“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?’”
This is an extremely significant and concerning admission. It directly calls into question the accountability of many government officials, as well as the media and all the news “fact-checkers” that publicly criticized the anti-vax movement.
In this moment in time, everyone is simply too distracted by the Ukraine conflict and whether or not it will end up developing into a massive nuclear war. They’re so completely focused on this one new thing that they are no longer able to even think about Covid. Unfortunately for the pro-vax coalition however, despite people having a short attention span and a tendency to forget things quickly, the internet still keeps a relatively good record of almost everything.
Have we so easily forgotten that, for a year and a half, governments were forcing the Covid vaccine onto the population? And that it was on the very basis of the vaccine supposedly protecting people from transmitting the virus?
They did so while knowing fully well, in the beginning at least, that there was no scientific evidence to back up their claims. The vaccine campaign was nothing more than a major gamble. And what were the stakes? Only the health and well-being of the entire population!
The pro-vax narrative placed the focus entirely on transmission in order to try and reconcile liberalism and the restriction of individual liberties. How do you justify the imposition of a vaccine pass for the most insignificant aspects of everyday life when the West has been waging war against tyranny and totalitarianism for years?
According to the liberal mind, your individual liberty ends where the individual liberty of others is infringed upon. This translates simply as: you are free to go outside as long as you do not infringe upon the right of other people to be safe.
For this to be applicable, it needed to appear as though the vax prevents transmission. Otherwise, under liberal reasoning, it could not be used as an excuse for it to be mandated and imposed upon the people. All governments and media outlets joined hands in declaring that we must all get the shot in order to protect others. If you are civil, you have to get the vax. There is no question about it.
Now they’re in a bit of an awkward situation since they need to try and convince everyone that they had not made any definitive claims regarding transmission. And this is despite the fact that there is clear and undeniable evidence to the contrary.
Recently they’ve been desperately seeking to execute complete damage control, only making themselves look utterly idiotic in the process. And the awkwardness and hypocrisy of it all was so transparent that even some journalists started publicly denouncing it.
This new revelation once again succinctly demonstrates the absolute hypocrisy of the reigning forces within society.
Is it necessary for us to now debunk their desperate line of defense, one which argues that later studies had proven that the vaccine prevented the transmission of Covid; that there was no evidence at the time of the distribution suggesting that the vaccine did not stop the transmission; and that the risk of inoculating it onto the population was therefore justified due to the existence of a mere possibility that it may work?
That’s some seriously twisted logic, and only an incredibly biased person would be convinced by it.
Here’s the last question I have regarding these shenanigans:
If conspiracy theorists are correct—in their allegation of the vaccine being dangerous and having been forced upon the population as part of an evil agenda—why then did the various heads of state and ministers of most governments publicly take the jab?
Well, this question can be answered based on a recent interview with Jean Lasalle, a former deputy and candidate for the French presidential election.
The side effect nearly killed me.
I was not aware that Macron, most members of the government, and a large number of my deputies’ colleagues were all not vaccinated.
Jean Lasalle is well-known for his straightforwardness and honesty. We have no reason to assume that he is lying to us. This also explains an old controversy, when details of Emmanuel Macron’s health pass were leaked, and people realized that the date shown on the pass did not correspond with the date for when he had publicly announced his jab:
The head of state announced that he had been vaccinated on May 31. However, according to data from Medicare consulted by Mediapart, he would have been vaccinated on July 13, the day after his presidential address on the health pass.
Ultimately of course, we will likely never know the truth. These professional con artists will always claim that this is all just a big lie against them. If you dare to believe Jean Lasalle with regard to his accusation, they will label you as a rotten conspiracy theorist. So I guess this would apply not only to Lasalle but also to myself and everyone else that had warned about the vax not having been tested prior to its dissemination.