Why the Fact that Pfizer Did not Study Transmission For the FDA is, Indeed, Scandalous
"The best way to protect yourself and others" was parroted for a long time. Some were fired for not obeying the groupthink mob mentality that continued after the truth was known.
But protection against transmission is the only justification for “the best way to protect yourself and others’… and that’s now been completely debunked.
Remember this phrase: “REDUCTION OF TRANSMISSION IS NOT PREVENTION”.
This chart is one of the most important charts from one of the most important studies re: COVID-19 vaccines.
It was not published by Pfizer. Or Moderna. Or Janssen (aka J&J).
It was published in Science Magazine (See: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine protection and deaths among US veterans during 2021).
It shows the decline in the prevention of transmission that occurred rapidly. Any reasonable projection would have J&J at negative efficacy by October, 2021; Pfizer by Dec 2021/Jan 2022, and Modern by Feb/Mar 2022.
However, the knowledge that the vaccines might not stop transmission was widely appreciated a full year prior.
Now, I’ve already addressed that the news that the vaccines do not prevent transmission was not new.
But the reveal by the Pfizer Executive is still scandalous given that he claimed they never studied transmission prior to the vaccine going out for widespread use (aka, “coming to market”).
So when the spinnologists at FactCheck.org try to assuage a justifiably outraged public, who has been firehosed messaging the same spinnologists and their like that "The best way to protect yourself and others" was to get the jab, it’s convenient that their opinion post on this issue provides the very quotes that underscore the scandal.
Italics with FactCheck.org opinion. Bold is mine.
Following the hearing, Roos posted a two-minute video statement on Twitter that included his exchange with Small.
“BREAKING: In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission. ‘Get vaccinated for others’ was always a lie. The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. The world needs to know. Share this video!” said the post, which got 232,600 likes and 138,500 shares in less than two days.
“I find this to be shocking, even criminal,” Roos said in his video statement.
But as we said, nobody claimed the vaccines — Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s — were tested for transmission prevention before they hit the market. Those studies started once the vaccines were being administered.
These are EUA vaccines - not FDA-approved. Remember when FDA “approved” a mythical Pfizer product Comirnaty, but kept Pfizer’s other, identical, same-labeled vaccine under EUA? Aug 23, 2021?
Remember when the FDA set the 50% efficacy requirement for EUA for the vaccines?
From FiercePharma (June 30, 2020):
“Coronavirus vaccine developers now have some advice from the FDA: To win approval, any vaccine must be at least 50% more effective than placebo in preventing the disease.
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn plans to roll out that guidance at a Senate hearing today, the Wall Street Journal reports. It sets a bar about on par with a flu shot's performance in a good year—but it falls short of some expert recommendations for arresting the virus' spread.
The agency also won’t approve a shot based on its ability to create antibodies in patients’ blood, the WSJ reports. Experts don’t yet know how those antibodies translate to protection against COVID-19.
Despite the urgency of this particular vaccine hunt, the FDA “will not reduce its standards or cut corners in its review to approve a vaccine,” according to a summary of the guidance cited by the WSJ. On Tuesday, the agency published its guidance.
That pledge comes as some industry watchers worry the Trump administration could pressure the agency to approve a vaccine before the election for a political win. Hahn has said politics will not go into COVID-19 vaccine reviews.”
So, the corporations were told to study what? Antibody production? Hospitalization? Rates of severe COVID? COVID? No.
“To win approval, any vaccine must be at least 50% more effective than placebo in preventing the disease.”
Let’s remember, CDC defined “COVID-19” as “PCR positive”. If you tested positive via PCR, YOU HAD COVID.
You can’t define a disease one way for diagnostics, and another for the convenience of vaccine studies.
Back to FactCheck.Org:
“Our landmark phase 3 clinical trial (protocol published November 2020) was designed and powered to evaluate efficacy of BNT165b2 to prevent disease caused by SARS-CoV2, including severe disease. Stopping transmission was not a study endpoint,” Pfizer’s global media relations senior director, Andrew Widger, told us in an email, referring to the company’s vaccine.
That’s not uncommon. In a commentary published in Science in March, Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor in the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, and M. Elizabeth Halloran, head of the Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Epidemiology Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, wrote that estimating indirect effects of a vaccine, such as reduction in infectiousness, “is typically done after a vaccine is licensed, in either observational studies or cluster randomized trials.”
It’s irrelevant if it’s common or not. What did the FDA require as an endpoint? That’s what matters.
The primary benefit of an effective vaccine is to prevent symptomatic disease, Dean told us in an email, and “given the urgent need to prevent COVID-19 illness, the trials focused on these primary goals,” she said. A secondary benefit of an effective vaccine is to reduce transmission, she added, either by protecting against infection or by making infected people less contagious. “But assessing protection against infection requires specialized tests (antibody tests or more frequent sampling) and, to measure contagiousness, measuring viral load and, preferably, studying family members or other contacts,” she said.
BAIT-AND-SWITCH: PREVENTING ILLNESS IS NOT THE ENDPOINT SET FORTH BY THE FDA
We explained the difference between infection with a virus and disease, or the development of illness, in this video.
Yeah, that’s not correct. The CDC defined “COVID-19” as “positive PCR test result” - with or without symptoms. Remember? “Died with” = “Died from”? Remember?
Roos did not reply to our request for comment, but he told the Associated Press that governments infringed on fundamental rights by imposing vaccine mandates with “no evidence” that the vaccines stopped transmission. In an appearance on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Oct. 11, he said that “governments pushed millions of people worldwide to get vaccinated by telling them … do it for your grandmother” and introduced “so-called COVID passports,” mandates and lockdowns “in the name of public health.”
“All of this was based on the idea that vaccination helps prevent the spread of the virus, otherwise, why shun people out of society? But this has now proven to be a big lie,” Roos said.
To be fair, some officials have overstated the transmission protection provided by the vaccines. But studies did find that vaccinated people were much less likely to spread the virus, either because they were protected from getting infected in the first place, or by being less contagious if infected.
Hold on there, FC. It was also the firehosing of the narrative by the Pharma-funded mainstream media, the mandates… oh, “some officials” have overstated?
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: “Yes, vaccines block most transmission of COVID-19 The latest data show that getting a shot not only protects vaccinated individuals, it reduces the chance they can spread the virus to others.”
Nat Geo Text:“Early data looked promising”
“Although the vaccine manufacturers did not track infections for all phase three trial participants, they did gather some data. Moderna tested all participants when they received their second dose and reported in December that fewer asymptomatic infections occurred in the vaccinated group than the placebo group after the first dose. Johnson & Johnson also reported data from nearly 3,000 phase three trial participants who were tested two months after vaccination to see if they had antibodies from a new infection since vaccination. That preliminary data suggested a 74 percent reduction in asymptomatic infection.
Those findings hinted that the vaccines had the ability to prevent infections. That development was followed by three preprints—not yet peer-reviewed—that suggested even more good news. One found that people vaccinated with one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had viral loads up to 20 times lower than viral loads in unvaccinated, infected people.
Two others, from the Mayo Clinic and the U.K., included more than 85,000 routinely tested healthcare workers who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The vaccine reduced infection by 85 to 89 percent. All this evidence underscores all three vaccines’ ability to prevent infection in the majority of those vaccinated.”
And then there's this little problem: REDUCTION OF TRANSMISSION IS NOT ‘PREVENTION’.
But stay focused: Why didn’t Pfizer study this outcome?
Now comes the spin to save the vaccines as “somewhat” effective against Omicron (by Factcheck.org):
As we’ve reported, that became less true with the emergence of the more transmissible and immune evasive omicron variant, but there is still evidence that for a short period, vaccines help reduce omicron transmission somewhat.
“Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time,” CDC experts wrote in their latest guidance for minimizing the impact of COVID-19.
In their commentary, Dean and Halloran mention two studies published in Science based on data from Israel to argue that there are multiple factors that affect the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to reduce transmission, such as time since vaccination and evasive variants.
One of the studies found that in households with one infected parent, the chances of at least one unvaccinated child becoming infected were much lower if that parent was vaccinated. The chance of infection was 72.1% lower with a vaccinated parent during the alpha period, shortly after the vaccines were rolled out, and 79.6% lower during the delta period. The other study found that vaccines reduce infectiousness by 23% using data from before the emergence of delta.
“COVID-19 vaccines have provided exceptional protection against severe disease, and they have reduced transmission. Notably, indirect protection is not all or nothing but rather incrementally increases with each newly immunized person. Ensuring our communities are well vaccinated is a major priority as SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic,” Dean and Halloran concluded.
Wait a second - what happened to "mRNA Vaccines Induce Durable Immune Memory to SARS-COV-2 and Variants of Concern?" Remember? October , 2021? Science Magazine, for heck’s sake?
That MAJOR non-reality aside; Fine, fine. But why didn’t PFizer study transmission when it was the endpoint required by FDA?
Wait, I know. We have someone who can settle this for us.
Now, I know some of you find this painful to watch. Thank goodness for transcripts.
“Hello and welcome to back to the science
I'm Dr Susan Oliver and I'm a scientist
and back there is Cindy Oliver and she's
a dog now both of us are a little
JLW: I AM TRYING TO STAY ON TARGET HERE, BUT THANK YOU DR. FOR THE CLARIFICATION?
perplexed at the moment because we've
just seen a video from Dr John Campbell
entitled viral transmission not tested
in Pfizer trials and we can't decide
whether it's demonstrating his ignorance
or if he is just grifting so we'll show
you a few clips from the video and
explain why we're so perplexed
JOHN CAMPBELL: now this is my interpretation of this
because this is only me
um kovid Pfizer’s vaccine was not tested
on stopping the transmission of the
virus before it entered the market
this was not done
before vaccine before the vaccine
entered General rollout despite us being
that everything all the normal stages
were carried out as they would be for
any new product and yet it turns out now
we know what however long it is now
two years later or whatever this wasn't
done this really is I I think this is
really quite scandalous and I certainly
feel personally let down by I'm sure a
lot of you do
DR. DOG-OWNER: so there are two things in this clip
that we found odd
see John seems to be suggesting that up
until now he didn't realize that the
original Pfizer trials didn't look at
this is really odd because the trial was
published in December 2020 in the New
England Journal of Medicine and it's
pretty clear that transmission wasn't an
end point in the trial so either John
has never read this pivotal trial or he
didn't understand it
or he's grifting
NO, HE JUST UNDERSTANDS THE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THE FDA SAID THEY WERE GOING TO REQUIRE. LIKE THE REST OF UNDERSTAND AND RECALL.
and if he missed the nejm study he could
have read the FDA press release from when
the Pfizer vaccine was approved which
contained this information
at the time data are not available to
make a determination about how long the
vaccine will provide protection nor is
there evidence that the vaccine prevents
transmission of SARS cov2 from person to
THEN THE FDA, BY THEIR STATED LEVEL OF EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED THE VACCINE. THIS IS WHY IT’S SCANDALOUS.
or he could have looked at the UK dhsc
guidance which says
testing should continue even for those
who have been vaccinated clinical trial
evidence demonstrates that the vaccine
reduces clinically severe infection and
severe disease the impact of the vaccine
on preventing transmission remains
unknown and individuals
who have been vaccinated may still carry
and be able to transmit the virus
SO THIS WAS KNOWN BEFORE THE MANDATES AND FIRING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND WRECKING THE ECONOMY IN THE BID TO FORCE-VACCINATE EVERYONE?
it's strange that John missed all of
this at the time even stranger is the
fact that he seems to think that testing
for transmission is normally part of
AGAIN, FDA SAID SO…
now um at the time I remember
representatives of the UK government
who've now been made into Dames and
knights and all sorts of things
emphatically telling us that everything
that was normally done in any clinical
trial was done during these trials they
gave us their word about this
testing the transmission is not
typically part of a phase 3 clinical
trial for example here's a paper
describing a clinical trial for a
measles vaccine from the U.S way back in
transmission wasn't an end point
and likewise it wasn't an end point for
this measles vaccine trial which was
undertaken in the UK in 1964.
SO, YOU’RE SAYING THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MEASLES VACCINE MANDATES EITHER?
and here's a paper describing a more
recent vaccine trial in this case for
the quadrivalent HPV vaccine
again transmission wasn't an end point
of course the course the transmission wasn't an
endpoint in the original clinical trials
doesn't mean it wasn't looked at in
NEITHER WAS TYPE REPLACEMENT, AND NOW WE KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT, TOO, BUT I DIGRESS
John would know this surely
no I do
stress that this is not me saying this
this is this is uh Mr Roos saying this
so we'll just clarify the YouTube
uh because YouTube we can't say anything
that uh contradicts local Health
authorities or the World Health
Organization so I'm certainly not saying
and efficacy of the vaccines we're not
allowed I'm not allowed to say content
that claims that the vaccines do not
reduce transmission or contraction of
the disease now some of you might think
that that was implied by um by Mr Roos
and Miss Small but that's entirely your
conjecture that's nothing to do with me
and just in case he's nudge wink wink
technique isn't clear to you he explains
what he is doing in another video that
he recorded with Pierre Kory which is
on another platform I do a lot through
intimation you know giving the camera
funny looks and yeah you know people
know what I mean you know
and you get away with it with it yeah
you know and of course Vladimir Putin
has nothing to do with that right yeah
so Johnny's suggesting that the Pfizer
vaccine doesn't reduce transmission but
of course he's not saying it directly
nudge nudge wink wink the thing is
though his suggestion is totally wrong
although we didn't have the data when
the vaccines were first approved several
studies have now been done that show
that covert vaccines do reduce
transmission and note I am saying
reduced not prevent vaccines have never
been 100 effective at anything
covered vaccines reduce Transmission in
two ways firstly by reducing detectable
infections because if you don't get
infected with our significant dose of
SARS cov2 you can't pass it on to anyone
else and secondly vaccines reduce
transmission by reducing your chances of
passing the virus on if you do get
here's an example of a paper that showed
that the Pfizer vaccine reduce both
symptomatic and asymptomatic infections
interestingly John made a video about it
when the study was first released
let's have a listen to a bit of the
now because this is people are being
and 72 percent who don't have the virus
they don't test positive for the virus
and of course if you don't test positive
for the virus you can't spread it
so from this we can say that the first
dose of the Pfizer is reducing the
transmission of the virus
because people without the virus can't
can't be spreading it there you have it
straight from John's mouth so why is he
now suggesting that vaccines don't
NONE OF THIS MATTERS - THE SHOCK IS THAT TRANSMISSION WAS NOT AN ENDPOINT IN THE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO FDA
BUT… THE ANSWER TO WHY HE IS SUGGESTING THAT THE VACCINES DON’T REDUCE TRANSMISSION IS
PREVENTING TRANSMISION MEANS STERLIZING IMMUNITY.
REDUCING TRANSMISSION MEANS LEAKY VACCINES.
WE ALL KNOW WE DON’T END PANDEMICS WITH LEAKY VACCINES.
NOT TO MENTION THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ADE. WE KNOW HOW THE DATA ARE BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE VACCINATED HAVING LOWER RATES; UNTIL 15 DAYS FOLLOWING JAB ONE, THEY DON’T EXIST, AND THEN CDC LOWERED THE CYCLE THRESHOLD TO 27 FOR THE VACCINATED, KEEPING CT UP TO 45 FOR THE UNVACCINATED.
THE JIG, AS THEY SAY, IT UP.
has he forgotten
this paper that he made a video about or
is he just grifting
WAIT, WHAT? John Campbell, grifting? Wow, sounds familiar. If John Campbell is a grifter, than I will loudly proclaim that I am proud to have been lumped in that category!!!
Let’s not forget, it’s 2022, so not only do we get to decide what we are called: we get to define what that term means. So, whenever anyone calls me, or John Campbell or anyone else a “grifter”, it’s now a high compliment:
Grifter: Someone who spends a great deal of time considering diverse sources and types of information before coming to a conclusion about a topic. Typically, Grifters provide that same information to others, objectively, with the agenda of attempting to remain as objective as possible. Grifters also help others sort through propaganda and disinformation, saving others countless hours so they don’t have to sort through tons of resources. They are, therefore, given a great deal of appreciation from their followers, and that appreciation is often expressed in terms of subscriptions or donations to underwrite the valued effort.
Proud Grifter here, I am. And I’m in good company.
Back to Dr. 'REDUCTION MEANS PREVENTION’:
there are also a number of papers
showing that vaccines reduce your
infectiousness if you do get infected
ALWAYS? EVERY VACCINEE? CLEARLY NOT.
a lot of them were
done with earlier variants so they're
not directly relevant
WAIT WAIT WAIT— Durability of preventing transmission is PART OF THE ISSUE HERE…
now however this
paper here looked at transmission of
Omicron Within Danish households so
let's have a look at what they found
this figure Compares being vaccinated
and booster vaccinated with being
unvaccinated in terms of both
infectiousness and susceptibility to
infection as well as the combined effect
of both and as I've already covered both
of these are relevant to transmission
the figure also breaks the data down by
ba1 which is in blue and ba2 which is in
red the black lines are a comparison
between ba1 and ba2 as you can see the
combined effect is superior to being
unvaccinated for both vaccinated and
booster vaccinated individuals with
booster vaccination being Superior to
just being vaccinated so even with
Omicron vaccination does reduce
transmission to a certain extent
OF COURSE THIS ALSO MEANS IT ALSO DOES NOT PREVENT TRANSMISSION IN SOME.
SO WHO’S THE GENIUS WHO THOUGHT MASS-VACCINATION DURING A PANDEMIC WITH A LEAKY VACCINE FOR AN MRNA VIRUS WAS A GREAT IDEA?
now it's quite possible that John isn't
familiar with this study and others
showing similar results and it's
possible he never read the original
I SEE. THIS IS ALL A STRAWMAN. JOHN’S SHOCK IS OVER THE FACT THAT PFIZER EXEC CLAIMED THEY NEVER STUDIED TRANSMISSION FOR THE DATA SUBMITTED FOR REGULATORY REVIEW. NOW, THIS PERSON AND HER DOG ARE INFORMING US THAT THE EXECUTIVE WHAT, LIED?
and that he forgot about
the study he presented that showed that
vaccinations reduced transmission
WHOA, HOLD ON THERE, PUPPY.
“REDUCED” IS NOT “PREVENT”
“SOMETIMES PREVENTS” IS NOT “PREVENTS”… WE’VE BEEN OVER THIS…
he regularly admits that he doesn't know
but I haven't got a flipping clue
I ASSUME THIS IS THE HUMAN DOCTOR TYPING, SO, TO YOU: THIS IS YOUR FIRST WORTHWHILE STATEMENT
so is Dr John Campbell's video on Pfizer
vaccine transmission just ignorance or
is it grifting I'll let you decide
OK, I’VE DECIDED. YOU’RE SLATHERING YOUR STRAWMAN WITH AD HOMINEM, TYPICAL OF VACCINE RISK, INJURY AND DEATH DENIALISTS.
if you'd like to look further into the
data I've presented I've provided links
in the videos description and please
remember this video is about the science
(JLW SPITS OUT COFFEE!)
but you shouldn't take it as medical
advice for that you should speak to your
OR USE YOUR RIGHTS TO INFORMED CONSENT AND CHOICE…
LEAKY VACCINES DO NOT STOP TRANSMISSION.
MRNA VACCINES ARE LEAKY.
WE’LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT THEN.
This is priceless for those who like real facts that lead to concrete conclusions!
What Pfizer did, what the CDC did, what every government authority mandating a jab did - it’s all FRAUDULENT!
I’m no lawyer, but there should be enough criminal fraud in all of this to put Pfizer into bankruptcy and ruin the careers of hundreds of lying weasels. Go for it!