In an interview with CNBC News in September 2020, Dr. Albert Bourla, the veterinarian Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer — the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue — said that anyone refusing to take the BioNTech vaccine will become “the weak link that will allow the virus to replicate”, and assured the public that “we will develop our product, develop our vaccine using the highest ethical standards”.
It was a dangerous claim to make, even for a CEO and investor making billions out of the experimental mRNA gene therapy product. Pfizer has a long history of paying out vast sums in out-of-court settlements to avoid not only claims in civil cases but also prosecution on criminal charges resulting from the fraudulent promotion, unapproved prescription and injury, including death, from use of its products. It has also offered millions in payments to doctors and scientists to prescribe, test, approve and recommend them to the public. So let’s have a look at what Dr. Albert Bourla means by Pfizer’s ‘ethical standards’.
- In 1992, Pfizer agreed to pay between $165 million and $215 million to settle lawsuits arising from the fracturing of the Bjork-Shiley Convexo-Concave heart valve, which by 2012 has resulted in 663 deaths.
- In 1996, Pfizer conducted an unapproved clinical trial on 200 Nigerian children with its experimental anti-meningitis drug, Trovafloxacin, without the consent of their parents and which led to the death of 11 children from kidney failure and left dozens more disabled. In 2011, Pfizer paid just $700,000 to four families who had lost a child and set up a $35 million fund for the disabled. This cover-up was the basis of the John Le Carré book and film The Constant Gardener.
- In 2004, Pfizer’s subsidiary Warner-Lambert was fined $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities for the fraudulent promotion of its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, paying doctors to prescribe it for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
- In 2009, Pfizer spent $25.8 million lobbying Congressional lawmakers and federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. Its expenditure on federal lobbying between 2006 and 2014 came to $89.89 million. In 2019 it spent $11 million lobbying the federal Government.
- In 2009, Pfizer set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind, paying $2.3 billion to avoid criminal and civil liability for fraudulently marketing its anti-inflammatory drug, Bextra, which had been refused approval by the FDA due to safety concerns.
- In 2009, Pfizer paid $750 million to settle 35,000 claims that its diabetes drug, Rezulin, was responsible for 63 deaths and dozens of liver failures. In 1999, a senior epidemiologist at the Food and Drug Administration warned that Rezulin was “one of the most dangerous drugs on the market”.
- In 2010, Pfizer was ordered to pay $142.1 million in damages for violating a federal anti-racketeering law by its fraudulent sale and marketing of Neurontin for uses not approved by the FDA, including for migraines and bi-polar disorder.
- In 2010, Pfizer admitted that, in the last six months of 2009 alone, it had paid $20 million to 4,500 doctors in the U.S. for consulting and speaking on its behalf, and $15.3 million to 250 academic medical centres for clinical trials.
- In 2012, Pfizer paid $45 million to settle charges of bribing doctors and other health-care professionals employed by foreign Governments in order to win business. The Chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit said: “Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers.”
- By 2012, Pfizer had paid $1.226 billion to settle claims by nearly 10,000 women that its hormone replacement therapy drug, Prempro, caused breast cancer.
- In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle criminal charges of failing to warn patients and doctors about the risks of kidney disease, kidney injury, kidney failure and acute interstitial nephritis caused by its proton pump inhibitor, Protonix.
- In 2013, Pfizer set aside $288 million to settle claims by 2,700 people that its smoking cessation drug, Chantix, caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. The Food and Drug Administration subsequently determined that Chantix is probably associated with a higher risk of heart attack.
- In 2013, Pfizer absolved itself of claims that its antidepressant, Effexor, caused congenital heart defects in the children of pregnant woman by arguing that the prescribing obstetrician was responsible for advising the patient about the medication’s use.
- In 2014, Pfizer paid a further $325 million to settle a lawsuit brought by health-care benefit providers who claimed the company marketed its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, for purposes unapproved by the FDA.
- In 2014, Pfizer paid $35 million to settle a law suit accusing its subsidiary of promoting the kidney transplant drug, Rapamune, for unapproved uses, including bribing doctors to prescribe it to patients.
- In 2016, Pfizer was fined a record £84.2 million for overcharging the NHS for its rebranded and deregulated anti-epilepsy drug Phenytoin by 2,600% (from £2.83 to £67.50 a capsule), increasing the cost to U.K. taxpayers from £2 million in 2012 to about £50 million in 2013.
- In May 2018, Pfizer still had 6,000 lawsuits pending against claims that its testosterone replacement therapy products cause strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, and were fraudulently marketed at healthy men for uses not approved by the FDA.
- In June-August 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice said they were looking at Pfizer’s activities in China and Russia under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids U.S. firms from bribing foreign officials.
- In November 2021, the British Medical Journal revealed that the Ventavia Research Group had falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in the phase 3 trial for Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’.
- Since 2000, Pfizer has incurred $10.268 billion in penalties, including $5.637 billion for safety-related offences; $3.373 billion for unapproved promotion of medical products; $1.148 billion for government contract-related offences; $60 million under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and $34.7 million for ‘kickbacks and bribery’.
Given this record of ongoing corruption and malpractice from, which only its enormous profits have saved it from criminal prosecution by means of out-of-court settlements, it seems extraordinary that Pfizer Inc. is still permitted to manufacture and sell any health-care products. Yet this is the pharmaceutical company we were asked by the U.K. Government, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the U.K. Health Security Agency and the National Health Service to trust with the mass vaccination of 68 million people with a product that was rushed through clinical trials in seven months, employing experimental mRNA biotechnology whose clinical trials are not due to be completed until March 2023, for a disease with the infection fatality rate not much above seasonal influenza, which statistically is no threat to those under 50 years old, and for which there is no evidence that it prevents infection by the virus.
That was three years ago, during which the British people have paid with their freedoms, their health and their lives for believing the lies of their Government, their National Health Service and international pharmaceutical companies. Subsequent retractions by Pfizer, however, are an opportunity to revisit its claims in more detail.
On December 10th 2020, the U.S. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met to evaluate the trial data on the efficacy and safety of Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained in the briefing document produced by Pfizer itself titled ‘Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Briefing Document‘. It was on the basis of this evaluation that, on December 11th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorisation to its mRNA gene therapy product. And given the subsequent debate about what Pfizer claimed its ‘vaccine’ would do, it might be useful to review the contents of this document.
The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation, which requires less data than standard approvals and is based on a lower standard of proof, was issued for a vaccine “intended to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2”. It was issue for prevention, therefore, not for reduction of the severity of symptoms, as was claimed when it became clear the gene therapy product did not prevent infection. Pfizer’s claim was that its product had a ‘vaccine efficacy’ of 95% protection against COVID-19 occurring after second days from injection with the second dose. In its clinical trials, a ‘case’ of COVID-19 was defined as a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, muscle pain, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting. Nothing was said about asymptomatic ‘cases’ of COVID-19, or claimed about the ability of the gene therapy product to stop ‘asymptomatic transmission’ of the virus.
Pfizer’s benefit assessment was that its mRNA vaccine may be able to induce “herd immunity”, induces strong “immune responses”, and “confers strong protection against COVID-19”. This clearly indicates protection against both infection with the virus and the disease. Since transmission of a virus from person to person requires prior infection, Pfizer’s claim that its vaccine protects against infection, and the suggestion that sufficient injections will induce ‘herd immunity’, is also, by extension, a claim that it stops transmission from the injected.
The subsequent claim by Janine Small, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, during her testimony before the European Union Parliament in October 2022, that Pfizer never tested whether its ‘vaccine’ stopped transmission appears, therefore, to rest on the myth of ‘asymptomatic transmission’. The implication of her statement was that Pfizer’s product only stops infection with SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms of COVID-19. However, the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation for Pfizer’s vaccine was based on prevention of both infection and disease. Pfizer’s claim is not evidence, as many afterwards claimed, for the lack of justification for making injection a condition of lifting lockdown or imposing vaccine passports, but rather an attempt to deny responsibility for the failure of its product (from which it has made $69 billion) to meet either of its claims.
An indication of just how unscientific was the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine is that it was granted on the basis of protection from infection and disease, while conceding there is no evidence that the vaccine “prevents transmission from person to person“. This is the way the ‘Science’ we mustn’t question or deny but blindly follow is conducted in what I call the global biosecurity state. Indeed, three years after it announced the pandemic in March 2020, the World Health Organisation can still only offer the following justifications for the four vaccines authorised for use in the U.K.
- Pfizer/BioNTech: “There is modest vaccine impact on transmission.”
- AstraZeneca/Oxford: “No substantive data are available related to impact of the vaccine on transmission or viral shedding.”
- Moderna: “There is only modest impact on preventing mild infections and transmission.”
- Novavax: “There is not currently sufficient evidence to date to evaluate the impact of the vaccine on transmission.” (See World Health Organisation, ‘COVID-19 advice for the public: Getting vaccinated’.)
Failure to offer protection against infection or transmission, however, are the least of the failings of Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’. As the evidence of the harms and deaths caused by this experimental gene therapy product injected into the U.K. public becomes too overwhelming for all but the Covid-faithful, the British press, the U.K. Parliament and our Government to ignore, there have been no end of doctors, nurses and medical professionals protesting they thought Pfizer’s biotechnology was ‘safe and effective’. But aren’t they trained to spot when something is going medically very wrong?
As of January 25th 2023, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, responsible for authorising the injection of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine into U.K. citizens, has received 180,005 reports of 517,779 adverse reactions to the injections, over 70% of which reports (127,405) have been classified as ‘serious’, including 884 deaths following injection. Including AstraZeneca’s viral-vector gene therapy product and Moderna’s mRNA gene therapy, the MHRA has received a total of 477,553 reports of 1,555,433 adverse reactions to the COVID-19 gene therapies, 74 per cent of which (355,052 reports) are categorised as ‘serious’, including 2,436 deaths following injection.
By the MHRA’s own estimation, only 10% of serious adverse reactions and 2-4% of non-serious reactions are reported, so the actual tally of injuries, autoimmune disease, reproductive and breast disorders, miscarriages and premature births, facial paralysis, blood clotting, amputations, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks and deaths — all of which were recorded in Pfizer’s own analysis of post-authorisation adverse events as early as February 2021 — is far higher, undoubtedly many times higher. Indeed, this — and not the risible excuses with which the U.K. public has been fobbed off by the U.K. media — is likely a major cause of the huge increase in mortality in the U.K. since the ‘vaccine’ programme was implemented, contributing to the more than 60,000 excess deaths in 2022.
Given which, it is my contention that any medical professional that authorised or administered the injection of U.K. citizens with the Pfizer/BioNTech gene therapy product is at risk of being found guilty in a court of law for failure to give sufficient warning of adverse effects and obtain informed consent.
Simon Elmer is the author of two new volumes of articles on the U.K. biosecurity state, Virtue and Terror and The New Normal, which are available in hardback, paperback and as an ebook. This article is an extract from an article in Volume 2, ‘Bowling for Pfizer’. Please click on these links for the contents page and purchase options. On March 11th, to mark the third anniversary since the declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organisation, he will be holding a book launch at the Star & Garter, 62 Poland Street, W1F 7NX, upstairs in the William Blake room from 6-8pm. Entry is free, with book signings, a reading and open-mic discussion.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It did work exactly as intended, it’s making cars/personal transportation out of the reach of ordinary ppl (what they call the plebs). Once achieved public transport can be heavily taxed, as they’ll be a virtual government monopoly on movement. Don’t expect Uber to ride to the rescue either.
“the results have been even worse than critics predicted, simply because the chaos lasted such a long time. There are seemingly endless iterations of this theme. Learning losses, infrastructure breakages, rampant criminality, vast debt, inflation, lost work ethic, a growing commercial real estate bust, real income losses, political extremism, labour shortages, substance addiction, and more much besides, all trace to the fateful decision.”
Sadly, where Jeffrey Tucker sees poor decision making and rank mismanagement I see the opposite. The outcomes listed in the above paragraph will I am sure be listed as successes by the Davos Deviants. They have possibly succeeded in the collapsing of Western society – just as intended. This is what they mean by “Build Back Better,” but in order to Build Back Better first they have to destroy, hence the Great Reset.
I always enjoy Jeffrey Tucker’s work but on the matter of Lockdowns, their management and out comes I believe he is off kilter. Sadly, the destruction of the West has much further to go.
The Davos Deviants may think they are in control but I am not convinced. This will end very badly for the whole planet. Them and us.
The way we’re being played by the ‘Davos Deviants,’ and our response to them generates memories of Peter Finch’s creation ‘Howard Beale’ in the film ‘Network’, particularly his oration to the studio audience about mind control. His performance was mesmeric, no more so than when delivering his famous line: “I’m mad a s hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore.”
Thanks for the Peter Finch reminder.
Equally, Ned Beatty’s boardroom speech was spellbinding in its delivery and content.
How the world works!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc
Fossil fuels being a finite resource have become a kind of currency. Like Gold. The worlds resources cannot just be squandered, by endless burning and economic activity. Or at least that is the view of the world government in waiting at the UN. So how do you stop people using them all up? You need a very plausible excuse, and that excuse is “climate change”. Notice it is the wealthiest countries that are to be first to slow down and eventually stop using fossil fuels NET ZERO) because we have apparently already used up more than our fair share of the fossil fuels in the ground. ——-Eco Socialism
6uild 6ack 6etter
Exactly.
All for the “greater good”. ——–The Communist manifesto of the phony planet savers.
My son learned to drive in an electric car that I made for him in 1993. He now drives a 4.5 litre petrol guzzler.
You should be proud.
Thank you. He is the most unwoke son you could wish to have.
No doubt a sensible father helps.
Power Wheels
Converted junk invalid carriage.
Evs were never meant to work. They don’t want us to travel.
It isn’t just travel they want to stop. It is everything that needs fossil fuels. There is this fear that the developing world by bringing billions out of abject poverty and using vast amounts of coal oil and gas that these valuable resources will be depleted.
We’ve far more so called fossil fuels than we suppose.
Indeed, we have enough oil to deep-fry the Earth many times over.
Indeed we do. But fear of scarcity is one of the tools of the planet savers, along with fear of a climate apocalypse and population growth. ——It is a doomsday dossier of absurdity backed up by ZERO evidence.
Today’s corporate executives have not developed knowledge and skills in the unforgiving capitalist free market economy, instead their upbringing has been as clients of a Corporate Welfare State of subsidies, tax breaks, cheap money, ‘too big to fail’, protectionist regulation, job preserving, State directed economy. Hail the technocratic State.
They don’t understand how to manage in a free, consumer led environment, only know product led, Government command and control market.
It is the essence of Fascist economic policy – the ideology visible for those paying attention in all our ‘free democratic’ Governments of the West and that Leviathan the EU, its ancestor the EEC created by those running the Governments of Germany, Italy and France of the 1930s and 1940s.
That is exactly what the WEF means when it talks about ‘stakeholder capitalism.’
Indeed, yet another Orwellian phrase.
Call me stupid…this is sort of off-topic but Electricity related. Octopussy have just taken over from Shell…Octopussy claim that 100% of the electricity they supply is from renewable sources…then I check out a few more of these “suppliers”…Sainsburys, Ecotricity, Scottish Power, Eon…I could go on…How come they ALL advertise that they supply 100% from renewables, when our National Grid supplies roughly 35% from renewables.
Perhaps someone can illuminate me (excuse pun) or am I just mathematically challenged/haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid? Please help me find me a safe space from this lunacy…and don’t wind me up about electric cars.
The conclusion from your inquiries being that 100% of the population can access electricity from renewables but there is not 100% availability via the National Grid.
I think some people might be telling porkies.
They are telling porkies.
What’s more that 35% is an average over the year. There are times when “renewables” account for a LOT less than that – any day with little wind and not much sun, not to mention the sun doesn’t shine at night. Maybe they should look at lunar power? So at any given time all these people who think they are using “green” energy are just deluding themselves.
Aaaah the good old 100% renewable “truth”- ROCs and back up capacity fuelled by …. FFs – Octopus and every other energy supplier especially the scam Local Authority so called clean energy auction ( run by by two Dutch people from Holland ) – dont like to deal with queries about these two inconvenient other truths …..the latter reluctantly admitting that their “100%” clean energy supplies are not as advertised ….wield surprise……. not
“quel”….
I had a discussion once with a person who was not happy about me questioning the need for electric cars. I think mainly because he owned one.—-He asked “Have you ever driven an electric car”? —–I replied “No I haven’t”. ——So he said “Well there you go then”. —-I said to him “I am not criticising electric cars I am criticising government policy that seeks to coerce me into one” ——-A subtle but important difference. —–An electric car is just a piece of technology and if they are any good people will buy them since we all mostly know how best to spend our own money. The problem with everything GREEN is that the government thinks they know best how to spend it, and infact they have decided they will spend it for us regardless of what we think.
Now they just gaslight….Jeremy Vine. ‘Is Brexit to blame for the recession’. Another one is the mini budget from Liz Truss.
Brexit just to Regrexit, is like detox just to retox.
Unfortunately, the action that will be deemed ‘necessary’ – in view of the failure of EVs – will be to stop us driving altogether. It’ll come, you can be sure. The expression “to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face” was made for these people. It’s a death cult. All or nothing. At least they have principles!
Love this piece of writing!
The flabby acceptance by the car industry across the western world of the EV directive has been very disappointing. A total acceptance of Climate Change propaganda, and outrageous government intervention into fundamental principles of their business without any sort of opposition was shocking.
But then it applies to many other industries that have been feeble in their opposition to self destruction. Oil and gas, and steel for example. Ample lubrication with taxpayer money has helped of course.
The naive, unquestioning acceptance of all these insane policies by the gullible public is the most depressing aspect.
The resistance by the farmers is at least a step in the right direction.
People are missing the biggest point. The stupid CCP in China will destroy their economy with a product the world doesn’t want. Tee hee
My 36 year old son is still keen despite everything I’ve advised him on EV’s. You cannot put an old head on young shoulders. Fortunately, he hasn’t had the necessaries to waste. His lesson in life is less painful than most. Such a failure will delve a few parallels deep within the brow. So wisdom is on the up.
The great reset, driven at it’s root by the derangement invoked in the liberal left/globalists by Trump’s win in the 2016 election. It is manifested by the military/industrial complex described in some detail here: https://rumble.com/v4e0xw0-tucker-carlson-interviews-mike-benz-the-u.s.-governments-orwellian-mass-cen.html
The price of second hand EVs is falling because the price of new EVs is falling. This is typical with new technology. Tesla is profitable and the Model Y was the best selling car of any kind in the world in 2023. Tesla is reducing prices because there is a wave of cheap EVs coming this year from China and it wants to retain market share.
The great reset aims not to switch everyone from ICE to EV, the objective is to switch the majority of private motoring to walking, cycling, and public transport.
The price of used EVs is falling because nobody wants them. They are wary of the cost of used batteries if they fail. The depreciation of high end new EVs is staggering, losing 50% of their value in a couple of years. The problem with BEVs are the batteries which are not up to what is being asked of them. The market solution for car manufacturers is, as the CEO of Toyota says, hybrids. There is a huge demand that many car manufacturers are scrambling to meet.
Toyota plans to sell 3-4 million EVs by 2030 and is promising magic new battery technology for 2027 Toyota EVs
Yes I have read about solid state batteries which are not chemical batteries. This would be a huge achievement and just not for EVs. But this is all speculation at the moment. If they can produce a solid state energy storage device that can store the same amount of energy as an equivalent weight of gasoline, that would be life transforming. I am naturally skeptical as this discussion site requires.