Pfizer scientist Nick Karl, who privately admitted COVID antibodies are better than his company’s vaccine, was questioned by Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe while in public.
Nick Karl, who was not wearing a mask despite appearing to sit in a restaurant, was visibly surprised and upset when confronted by Project Veritas. He acknowledged his name, then became startled and refused to speak to O’Keefe as he abruptly rose and left the building.
Karl questioned, “I’m not doing this. Do not, absolutely not, what are you doing right now?” He then demanded to see video proving O’Keefe’s claims. When O’Keefe presented a tablet to view them, Karl fled the restaurant to his vehicle and drove away.
Karl, described by Project Veritas as an “experienced biochemist at Pfizer” with a history in pharmaceuticals, was caught in undercover video claiming that natural immunity provides a more robust antibody response to COVID-19 than the Pfizer vaccine.
“It’s just one antibody against one specific part of the virus,” said Karl while being recorded by a Project Veritas journalist. “When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against like multiple pieces of virus.” Project Veritas also recorded two other Pfizer scientists who agree with this assessment.
Allegations that Pfizer are conducting experiments on six-month-old orphans to test their Covid-19 vaccine have been made by whistleblowers in Poland leading to a group of lawyers, medical professionals and activists demanding members of the Polish parliament and Senate organise an urgent conference on Saturday 2nd October.
Children’s Health Defense was recently alerted by Polish whistleblowers that Pfizer is conducting experiments on orphan babies 6 months old to test their new vaccines. Babies and children do not die from Covid and rarely transmit the disease. This alone should be enough to refuse any kind of clinical trials with experimental vaccines. But Pfizer seems to be operating outside legal boundaries. If this is case, it is simply unacceptable and needs to stop. Answers and action are needed.
Another piece US anti-Ivermectin puzzle may have emerged. On Monday, Pfizer announced that it’s launching an accelerated Phase 2/3 trial for a COVID prophylactic pill designed to ward off COVID in those may have come in contact with the disease.
Coincidentally (or not), Pfizer’s drug shares at least one mechanism of action as Ivermectin – an anti-parasitic used in humans for decades, which functions as a protease inhibitor against Covid-19, which researchers speculate “could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency.”
Lo and behold, Pfizer’s new drug – which some have jokingly dubbed “Pfizermectin,” is described by the pharmaceutical giant as a “potent protease inhibitor.”
As Zero Hedge readers might recognize, that’s exactly what ivermectin, the prophylactic used for a number of reasons in both humans and animals, does. And unlike Pfizer’s experimental drug, ivermectin already may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives from India to Brazil.
We aren’t the only ones to have put this together, as twitter users have commented on the similarities. The timing – which coincides with the whole “horse dewormer” smear campaign – just seems odd.
The similarity between Pfizer’s upcoming offering and Ivermectin has not gone unnoticed.
Pharmaceutical megacorporation pfizer is now developing a COVID pill that is meant to be taken alongside the COVID vaccines that have already made the company a staggering amount of money. The new pill is expected to be released by the end of the year and will be required to be taken twice per day.
“Success against #COVID19 will likely require both vaccines & treatments,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on Wednesday. “We’re pleased to share we’ve started a Phase 2/3 study of our oral antiviral candidate-specifically designed to combat SARS-CoV-2-in non-hospitalized, low-risk adults.”
Pfizer also put out a press release the same week that proclaimed, “If successful, [the drug] has the potential to address a significant unmet medical need, providing patients with a novel oral therapy that could be prescribed at the first sign of infection, without requiring hospitalization.” The company described the drug as an “investigational orally administered protease inhibitor antiviral therapy designed specifically to combat COVID–19 – in non–hospitalized, symptomatic adult participants who have a confirmed diagnosis of SARS–CoV–2 infection and are not at increased risk of progressing to severe illness, which may lead to hospitalization or death.”
Media corporations have already expressed excitement about the new pill, and Pfizer is so confident that the pill will be swiftly approved and mandated by governments that it has already started a production line before the end of clinical trials.
The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.
But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA’s regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency’s cynicism.
First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) — still available for use.
The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.ORDER TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’
Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”
There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.
U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.
EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on Tuesday that, at some point in the future, a strain of COVID-19 that is resistant to vaccines is likely to emerge.
“Every time that the variant appears in the world, our scientists are getting their hands around it,” Bourla told Fox News in an interview. “They are researching to see if this variant can escape the protection of our vaccine. We haven’t identified any yet but we believe that it is likely that one day, one of them will emerge.”
As a condition of supplying Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) jabs to Columbia, Big Pharma giants Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca reportedly struck a secret immunity deal with the nation’s government, which agreed to indemnify the multinational corporations from liability for injuries and deaths caused by the injections.
Columbian officials “accidentally” published contracts from Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca showing that the 25 million doses of Fauci Flu shots that were recently shipped to the country would not have come were it not for the pharma giants first being awarded total immunity.
While attempting to send the confidential information to a regional court following a tutelage filing, Columbia’s Council of State, which is considered the supreme judicial authority in the country, mistakenly disclosed the contracts signed between the Columbian government and the pharmaceutical behemoths.
The alleged mistake was quickly discovered by the government and the documents were removed, but not before the Columbian nonprofit “Anticorruption Institute” accessed and copied it, later leaking it in order “to defend transparency and in a bid to safeguard the fundamental right of access to public information.”