yes, pfizer marketed the vaccines as stopping spread

and, as ever, we've got the receipts.

since the alleged bombshell (hardly new news to many of discerning cattitudes) at the euro-parliament in which pfizer admitted that they had never tested the vaccines to see if they stopped spread there has been an all too predictable orgy of “fact checking” making astonishingly implausible claims that “pfizer never said it would stop spread” and even that “health officials never said so either.”

but they did.

all of them.

in unison.

from a single hymnal of fabricated talking points that was repeated ad nauseum in every medium imaginable every day over and over until the sheer repetition of it was itself a warning sign.

nothing that really works needs that kind of hard sell.

but top to bottom, that’s what we got.

bad cattitude
yes, the vaccines were supposed to stop covid spread. yes, the "experts" told us so.
the revisionist history around vaccines is getting pretty extreme. let’s be VERY clear: yes, they were promised to stop spread, contagion, and provide herd immunity. yes, those promises were made by t…
Read more

and as you can see from the video above, pfizer CEO bourla is, in his own words on public media, participating in and leading the charge on this campaign of misinformation that his own company now admits had no basis in fact and had not even been tested for.

his moralizing as marketing is stark. “it’s not about you, it’s about all of us.” if you don’t get the vaxx “you are the weak link that will allow this virus to replicate.”

that is a direct marketing claim made in public for the express purpose of generating demand for the jab and overcoming resistance to taking poorly tested drugs.

it was made without evidentiary basis.

and it was wrong.

this alone ought be legal grounds for pfraud. it’s a clear, false claim made in furtherance of drug sales that was made without evidence or even testing to support it.

these vaccines did not stop spread. they did not protect society.

based on UK and much other data, the evidence appears stronger that they actually increased spread and make those “inoculated” multiples more and not less likely to contract and spread covid.

but even if one refuses to accept that, we’re still well into the land of the cut and dry here.

claims were made without evidence by people who knew or should have known that there was no evidence.

it’s that simple.

that’s gross misrepresentation and willful fraud.

and that alone should break the liability shields of EUA or, at the very least, open up a derivative suit.

and that should lead to serious, pointy questions about the quality of the overall data, the methods used to secure such vast contracts (often outside of standard channels) based on such scanty evidence, and the honesty of the drug trials themselves.

at this point, we have plenty of smoke from plenty of guns.

this is going to be one helluva ball of yarn to unravel.

but it has started now. and the threads will get pulled.

Funny Cats Playing with Yarn - YouTube