"The Speed Of Science"
Could be in reverse...
Did you hear the insolence in the answer from Janine Small, the Pfizer representative, when asked this question by MEP Robert Roos?
…was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping transmission of the virus before it entered the market?
Asked for a clear and straight answer, Janine responded with confusion from the very first sentence.
Regarding the question around whether we knew about stopping immunisation before we entered the market.. no, haha. These, emm. We had to really move at the speed of science…
Was it purposeful obfuscation that Janine used the word “immunisation” rather than “transmission”? Because, in the context of Rob’s question, that answer is completely nonsensical.
Rather than giving a clear and straight answer to the question, as she was asked, Janine instead went on to give a sales pitch about how wonderful Pfizer was for taking ‘all the risk’ and ‘doing all this benevolent work’ for humanity.
(Excuse me while I throw up!)
Even though Rob and the rest of the world, that was now finally paying attention, responded as if this was new information, it absolutely wasn’t. Mike Yeadon commented on that in response to a post about it:
"There’s a lot of angry people who are pro-Vax (rather, they’ve been jabbed perhaps based on misleading information & they’re understandably not pleased to realise they’ve been lied to).
One point of dispute is “Were we told that getting vaccinated would be a social contribution by reducing transmission to others?” Or not?
Obviously those of us who read the summary clinical protocol used for registration knew that no formal trials of transmission had been conducted at the time of EUA & that subsequent claims for impacts on transmission were never more than informal assertions, as it’s far from simple to study, being nevertheless a vital attribute. It’s definitely not something that can be assumed. Many assert that it can be assumed. Not so. First, a bare minimum would be to show that it prevents the illness in those who are vaccinated. We only know that it was claimed in the case of the Pfizer product that it reduced the propensity to become PCR positive with at least one symptom (though these could be mild & non specific, like a brief cough or runny nose). That study claimed over 90% Vax effectiveness, though it was a suspect result even at the time, because there was a huge imbalance in the numbers of subjects excluded due to unspecified protocol violations in the two arms of the study, sufficient for the BMJ to carry an editorial critical of the overall news release.
That study is the subject of legal action by whistleblower Brooke Jackson.
So, definitely no study on transmission.
Lots of others implied that reductions in transmission would inevitably accompany vaccination, which a number of us found concerning, because those making such claims or implying it had no standing, yet seemed to be believed.
By that time, a number of us knew we’d been lied to about a number of features of this claimed pandemic & additional lies weren’t that surprising. I’m afraid we were all lied to. Stop shooting the messengers & demand truth from those pushing us all around for their own purposes!
Best wishes"
Mike Yeadon.
Anyone with an ear to the ground at the time would have heard doctors and scientists saying this from the time before these injections were given EUA and foisted on humanity. If only our politicians were willing to listen to them back then, humanity may not be in such a perilously precarious financial position today.
But sadly they weren’t listening and most still aren’t.
The UN’s Under-Secretary-General, Melissa Fleming gave us a clue recently as to why they may not be listening. Her declaration that: We own the science, and we think the world should know it and the (social media) platforms also. sounds eerily similar to the stance the Church held when they placed Galileo on house arrest for 9 years, until the day he died, for his ‘insane’ idea that the earth revolved around the sun.
No one ‘owns’ science. It’s incredibly arrogant to take that position. Science is meant to be owned by, and be for the benefit of, everyone.
Max Planck made a famous comment on the speed of science which has been summarised in the following quote:
He originally meant this to apply to the young scientists getting to finally have their say after decades of control by crusty old professors who controlled the science of the time because they thought they “knew better”. But with the control of our young scientist’s minds and pockets I doubt if that is true any longer.
Instead we need to learn to listen to those crusty old experts, well, some aren’t that old, who are not financially dependent on the system and who hold the precious heart of humanity in their careful hands.
People like:
Kary Mullis, who fought Anthony Fauci for years before his death, on the insanity of using the PCR process to diagnose a disease. The very ‘test’ that was used to drive fear into the heart of everyone’s psyche. I wonder what his public comments would have been if he had been alive to see what just happened? I would have loved to hear them.
Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who after being on BBC extolling the virtue of the injections and double jabbed himself, has reversed his position following the death of his father proximal to the injection and months of deep research culminating in a peer reviewed paper. He is now calling for the immediate withdrawal of approval for the Covid mRNA shots and a full investigation of the raw data. Under ‘normal’ circumstances (who know what those are these days) that would raise more than a few eyebrows.
And the legion of climate experts calling out the fundamental flaws in the science driving the UN-WEF’s partnership 2030 Agenda that is right now crashing down upon us like a tidal wave. Have a read of this open letter to the un-illustrious COP 27 https://clintel.org/open-letter-to-global-leaders-assembled-at-cop27-in-sharm-el-sheikh-egypt/
In this moment in time we don’t have the luxury of waiting for experts to die, as Max would suggest, to be replaced by better ones. It is, in fact, the wrong strategy to wait for the ‘bought’ scientists to die off. As Mattias Desmet says in his book The Psychology Of Totalitarianism:
The leader is, so to speak, just the apex of the pyramid of the mass movement, and if he is eliminated, he will be replaced without the system destabilising.
That ‘system’ is running seriously amok.
We must instead continue to call for the willingness to listen. We must stop the censoring, de-platforming and defunding of the scientists that are trying to speak what they believe to be the truth.
In a very real sense, the true speed of science depends on the willingness to listen to those voices.
The willingness to listen to all of the scientists and to make our own judgements from that listening. To have a true debate in an open forum, is the measure of a well functioning democracy. After all, a democracy is only as good as the quality of the information the public has at its disposal. In its essence, that is the fundamental tenet of The Enlightenment.
Instead, with the increased censorship and financial control of science by people with vested interests we are not heading forward at any rate of knots at all. But backwards, to the Dark Ages, at the speed of science that the U.N. ‘owns’.
Nicely written Darag. I particularly like the reference to the UNs speed of science taking us back to the Dark Ages. Sadly, serfdom awaits our children unless society as a whole wakes up. Thankfully there are thousands of Galileos on the side of real science. Good always wins, but it will take a bit of time to overcome the financial mess Gvmts and central blankcheckers have created.
Very well written! Thanks Darag! 🙏