The Big Pharma Covid Scandal - June 20, 2021

The Biden administration, Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla, Dr. Anthony Fauci, U.S. federal health agencies (e.g. CDC, FDA, etc.), social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, etc.), the W.H.O. and the so-called mainstream media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, etc.) all have a lot of explaining to do. The current Democrat Party persistently uses a propaganda term from Adolf Hitler's political manifesto "Mein Kampf" (“My Struggle”) when using the term "The Big Lie" to attack Republicans and Trump supporters — when in fact (and history will show), it's been THEY who have been telling all the big lies.

Recently the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet have retracted their previous claims that may breathe new life into the anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, promoted by President Trump. And some scientists and researchers are only NOW coming forward, because earlier, they worried more about being associated in any way with Trump (because of the relentless slandering he had received about his character from the media over the last 5 years); so these "professionals" feared rejection by their peer more so than they did about saving human lives.

In a BOMB-SHELL REPORT today (Sunday, June 20, 2021) from the well-known and highly respected journalist #MariaBartiromo at #FoxNews, we have learned stunning revelations about what could well be the REAL cause of over 600,000 American deaths due to the #Covid19 Coronavirus that [most likely] escaped from the lab in #Wuhan, China (pop. 11 million), and then afterwards, may have been deliberately released on the entire world by the Chinese Communist Party during the Chinese New Year by allowing millions of their citizens in Wahun to travel to the New York City and Northern #Italy, but at the same time, banned all internal travel and blocked off all access to the lab (Five Eyes INTEL reveals there was no cellphone activity from this area as well).

Bartiromo's report today outlines how BIG PHARMA colluded to cover-up the therapeutic effects of #Hydroxychloroquine (that President #Trump had safely used) and #Ivermectin for the early treatment of covid-19 that could have saved millions of lives world-wide. These are drugs that are safe and abundant and have been is use for decades, but the only problem was . .  the patents had expired and BIG PHARMA wouldn't be able to rake in billions without a new drug and/or vaccine!

Watch the video below, then continue reading some related information that was put out PRIOR to Bartiromo's report. Also, keep in mind that those same aforementioned scientists and researchers who never came forward were also reluctant to admit the origin of the virus came from the Chinese lab . . . just because Trump (based on INTEL) argued the possibility.  And they wouldn't come forward because they feared losing government grants for their research. (Big omissions are also BIG LIES.)

#Pfizer and its collaborator #BioNTech released early study results on November 9, 2020 indicating that their COVID-19 vaccine prevented more than 90% of infections. Two days later #CharlieKirk (founder of Turning Point USA) claimed that Pfizer withheld the news of their phenomenal results for their #mRNA vaccine to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use in the U.S. until after the Democrat presidential candidate #JoeBiden secured enough electoral votes to become president-elect on November 7th. (Here is Pfizer's press release on November 9, 2020)

"Isn't it interesting that probably the best news for the market and for potential swing voters that voted a week ago was just released this morning? Regardless of your views on vaccinations, I think it is widely agreed upon that the news of an effective vaccine would help the markets and also help President Trump. "Why is it that Pfizer did not release this news when they had it 10 days ago? The reason? Election interference. Why did Pfizer not even announce the results on Friday, or Thursday? The reason is, Pfizer wanted to wait until Joe Biden was coronated as president, so that Joe Biden could get the credit for this. They sat on this news. They directly interfered in the U.S. presidential election." Kirk stated.

Kirk also noted that Pfizer considered releasing interim results after analyzing 32 cases in late October 2020. But in consultation with the FDA, the pharmaceutical giant decided against it and released fuller interim analysis results from 94 cases on Nov. 9th.

President Donald Trump also leveled such accusations against Pfizer and the FDA on Twitter the day the news was announced:

"As I have long said, Pfizer and the others would only announce a Vaccine after the Election, because they didn’t have the courage to do it before. Likewise, the FDA should have announced it earlier, not for political purposes, but for saving lives!"

But Albert Bourla, Pfizer's CEO, claimed that the data didn't come in until November 5th OR 6th, after Election Day on November 3rd. This is [an unverified] "fact check" by Camille Caldera at 4:27 p.m. ET on November 18, 2020 at USA TODAY (if you still believe MS media.) "Pfizer received COVID-19 vaccine data after Election Day, released within days" [Source]

Below is a transcript (with audio) from an interview with Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla by Dan Primack at Axios [Source]

Dan Primack: We're joined now by Dr. Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. So Dr. Bourla, can we just start with timeline here? The company today releases these efficacy results. When should we get kind of the other shoe to drop, which is safety. Albert Bourla: I think the safety data will mature next week, the third week of November. As I've said, it's already preset, the day, because we want the median, two months from the median [NOTE: this refers to a median of two months of safety data], and we know when that is going to occur. And then soon after, we should be able to apply to FDA, with whom we are going to continue discussing the application and other authorities in Europe, Japan, Canada, etc., etc. DP: You mentioned today or the company mentioned today that, if approved, there could be up to 50 million doses available by the end of 2020 — and I understand people ultimately require two doses, so that's 25 million patients. How soon after, if you were to get an EUA approval, would you actually be able to begin distributing the vaccine? AB: I believe immediately because we have already a few million already produced and we hope that we will be able to make sure that all these batches are cleared by the FDA and that we continue producing as we speak. So we will have immediately some millions doses to be able to release after safety, after quality controls. And by the end of the year, we hope to be able to release up to 50 altogether, globally. DP: The FDA obviously had this 50% threshold for efficacy kind of its baseline. Obviously everyone would like 100% efficacy because why wouldn't you in a vaccine? What was Pfizer's target? Or at least where did you think this was going to come in? AB: We were hoping for the best. I have to admit that I never hoped that it would be — because it's not 90, I said it is more than 90 — so I never hoped that we'd be more than 90%. And that's a very, very strong, overwhelming indication of efficacy. DP: Can I ask about that? You guys keep saying over 90%. Do we take that to mean like 90.02%? Or are you able to give us a more specific number? AB: The reason why we're not giving a specific number is first of all, we are not even telling our teams what the specific number is. And also the number would change. So for example, if it is 91, it could become 92. If it is 94, it could become 95, or vice versa by 1 point. So we don't want to confuse people with different numbers, but it is more than 90 and I believe will remain more than 90. So we just have to say what would be the final number when you read the results. DP: You know, over the past several months, when you talk to folks in the field on particularly the possible politicization of this, they all say the same thing, which is: So long as the company comes out and there is a vaccine and the data becomes publicly available and people outside the company and outside of even the independent review boards at the company can review it — at what point should outside physicians, outside virologists, etc., feel that they are going to be able to see your data? AB: Yeah, I think there are two batches of data here. One: It is what we will submit to the FDA. And there's a question mark if the study will be fully completed by that time, because also this possibility exists. Those data, whatever they are at the time, will be given to FDA, and I'm sure that FDA based on what they have said, they will analyze them and they will give them to an external group of advisers. They are meeting publicly. So those data will become public knowledge. The second is: Once we have ourselves completed the 164 [NOTE: this refers to 164 confirmed cases, Pfizer’s threshold to complete the clinical trial], which is the end of the study as per the protocol, those data we will publish in a peer review magazine, as we do always, which is a scientific magazine [where] high caliber scientists are reviewing the data before accepting for publication. And then the entire world will have visibility on those data. DP: Pfizer didn’t take Operation Warp Speed money for the development of this vaccine. Just from a fiduciary standpoint, why not? It was kind of free money, or were there major strings attached from your perspective? AB: There was free money, but always I think that there's never free lunch. When you take money from someone, there are always strings attached. But it was not an easy decision from a fiduciary point of view because the level of investment eventually is approaching or will exceed the $2 billion eventually. But the reason why I did that was because I wanted to liberate our scientists [from] any bureaucracy that comes with having to give reports and agree how we are going to spend the money in parallel or together, etc." * Editor's Note: Was it avoid any federal oversight? Per the NPR on November 24, 20204:46 PM ET (source): "When the Department of Health and Human Services released Pfizer's $1.95 billion coronavirus vaccine contract with Operation Warp Speed last Wednesday, the agreement revealed that the Trump administration didn't include government rights to intellectual property typically found in federal contracts. The drugmaker has downplayed its involvement in Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration's more than $10 billion program to make a coronavirus vaccine available in record time. Although Pfizer didn't receive government funding this spring toward research and development of the vaccine, it nevertheless received one of the largest Operation Warp Speed supply contracts to date on July 21." "And with that I unleashed the power of science, I think. And in retrospect, looking back, I'm very happy that I made this decision because we had the results I think much faster than otherwise if we were not unencumbered. And every day costs 1,000 lives only in the U.S. right now. So it's a very big toll that we’re paying. Also I wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics. I didn't take money, not only from the U.S. government, but then the other government in the world that they were offering. DP: I want to come back to that in a second, but I'm just curious. You do, however, have an agreement with U.S. government and Operation Warp Speed in terms of production and distribution. On the distribution side, who decides — if there are, you know, 25 million patients who are able to get access to this year — who decides who those people are and who's in charge of the actual distribution? Is that you, or is that the feds? AB: We are having agreements not only with the U.S. government, we have agreements with the European governments, with Japanese government, with Australia, with New Zealand, with Canada. With multiple governments in the world. I believe that it is not for Pfizer to decide who gets the vaccine. It is for the health authorities of its country. And I believe that in many cases, the health authorities should customize their recommendation based on different states, or in the U.S. for example, it could be based on the needs of the states, or the needs of the regions in some other countries. Pfizer will work and is working already with all of these people, so that we can provide the scientific background and insight as to how our vaccine can be used as part of an overall program that will control the disease. In the beginning, it is clear that there will be more limited distribution. As you said, 50 million doses is 25 million people globally. Even if half goes to the U.S., that means that it's going to be 12 million people that we can protect in the next 1½ months. Very important protection, but still a small part of the population. It needs to be strategically decided. I don't think it is for us. I think it is for the CDC or the authorities of the country, but they need to do it on a very equitable, only scientific basis. DP: You said one of the reasons you didn't want to take the development money was to keep Pfizer out of politics. Judging by Twitter at least today, you have not completely succeeded in that. I'm curious, I guess, can you just walk me through a little bit when you knew that you were going to be able to release this data? And candidly, if it had been one week earlier, if you had had this report ready for Monday a week ago, would you have released it? AB: Yes. In the, I think, one or two days after the first presidential debate, I wrote a letter to our employees and I said that some people want us to do it faster, some people want us to do it slower. I'm telling to all of you that we will move with the speed of science. So if it was before, I would have released it before. If it is now, I’ll release them now. I learned about those results yesterday, Sunday, at 2:00. And the independent experts’ committee, independent from Pfizer, that unblinded the data and reviewed, they met at 11 and they finished their meeting at 1:30. DP: Was the 11:00 meeting, was that pre-scheduled for yesterday at 11? Or was that just “the data's in, everybody get around the table?” AB: Sunday we knew that the data are in. So the data came in on Thursday or Friday. And on — but you know, from the time that the data comes in, before the committee meets, some people need to prepare for each case a very big and accurate narrative. And the physician should sign it. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. But we did it with the speed of light. And once we had the 94 cases, they worked on the narratives, they worked on the tabulation of the results. So on Sunday morning, we didn't want to lose a day, right? They didn't do it Monday. They did it Sunday. The committee met and they reviewed the data. DP: President-elect Biden said that he received late last night the information. Did the White House receive it also? The efficacy data. AB: We are speaking with both parts of the administration and the campaign, both political leaders from both spectrums regularly. And so I don't know when exactly each one of them received it, but they all have been briefed. DP: Final question for you. There is kind of a narrative starting to go around that Pfizer might've helped, candidly, save society, which isn't, you know, curing a certain number of people from a particular disease, which is what you guys are used to doing. How do you think about that? Just what you have done over the last eight months or so, and where you are today. It would seem to be something very hard to wrap your mind around. AB: You're right. It was a great relief. I had the goosebumps and tears in my eyes. And I was cautiously optimistic, but I was nervous. Not because if we don't, if we're not successful, we are going to lose the billion dollars. But if we’re not successful, the world is losing hope. And I could feel this weight on my shoulders so I can tell you that I had the emotional reaction with everyone will have when they hear this news, exact same. DP: Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer. Thank you so much for joining us. AB: Thank you very, very much.

Now the American public will be waiting for indictments for the BIGGEST LIE every told (other than the denial of the #Holocaust by the #NewYorkTimes) by the #FBI, who's been known to regularly cover-up for Democrat administrations — and very wealthy individuals.

And then, there's the problem we had with the nursing homes, the conspiracies and their cover-ups in several BLUE STATES. If the FBI director #ChrisWray would launch an honest and non-political investigation, we might eventually learn the whole truth.

FINAL NOTE: President Donald J. Trump's brainchild for "Operation Warp Speed" will eventually save millions of lives all around the world, and that will be one of the BIGGEST TRUTHS ever told — other than God's.