by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- August 3, 2023, the Australian Senate held a COVID hearing. Sen. Gerard Rennick asked Dr. Krishan Thiru, Pfizer’s Australian medical director, to explain the mechanism of how the mRNA COVID shot causes myocarditis. Thiru, however, kept talking in circles rather than answering the question
- Either Pfizer has no idea how the shot damages the heart, which raises serious questions about the company’s scientific qualifications, or they do know but refuse to admit it, for fear of liability
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
- Pfizer appears to have sponsored campaigns to push for the jab to be mandated, at least in the U.S., thereby maximizing the potential damage along with profits
- According to Marc Girardot, the bolus theory can explain how and why the mRNA COVID shots damage the heart and other organs
- Several other theories and hypotheses have also been proposed, including molecular mimicry, immune response to mRNA, dysregulated cytokine expression, ACE2 suppression, endothelial damage, lipid nanoparticles triggering syncytia formation and impeding the electrical conduction of the heart, and more
August 3, 2023, the Australian Senate Education and Employment Committee1 held a COVID hearing in which Sen. Gerard Rennick asked Dr. Krishan Thiru, Pfizer’s Australian medical director, to explain the mechanism of how the mRNA COVID shot causes myocarditis.2
Thiru, however, kept talking in circles rather than answering the question. Rennick valiantly tried, without success, to redirect him back to the question at hand, which was: Does Pfizer understand how the shot is causing damage to the heart?
The take-home here is that either a) Pfizer has no idea how the shot damages the heart, which raises serious questions about the company’s scientific qualifications or b) they do know but refuse to admit it, because if they do, it creates liability. As noted by Rennick, how can Pfizer say the shot is safe if they don’t understand the risk?
Pfizer Sponsored Groups Calling for Jab Mandates
Pfizer has not only insisted its COVID jab is safe and effective, and that side effects like myocarditis are vanishingly rare (despite athletes and young people dropping from heart problems at rates never seen before), the company also appears to have sponsored campaigns to push for the jab to be mandated, at least in the U.S., thereby maximizing the potential damage along with profits.
According to investigative reporter Lee Fang,3 Pfizer financed a long list of U.S. groups that lobbied for COVID jab mandates, including consumer groups, medical groups, public health organizations as and civil rights organizations. In the video above, UnHerd reporter Florence Read interviews Fang about his findings. Notable recipients of Pfizer funding just prior to or during the jab rollout included:4
| The Chicago Urban League, which accepted a $100,000 donation from Pfizer to promote “vaccine safety and effectiveness.” Unlike other corporate donations, this one was not publicly disclosed on the League’s website. |
| The National Consumers League, which received $75,000 from Pfizer earmarked for “vaccine policy efforts.” As noted by Fang, Andrea LaRue, an NCL board member, also happens to be a “highly paid contract lobbyist to Pfizer, focused on vaccine policy,” and this conflict of interest also was not disclosed. |
| The Immunization Partnership, which received, but did not disclose, a $35,000 donation from Pfizer for “legislative advocacy” in 2021, the same year they lobbied against Texas legislation to prevent vaccine passports and vaccine mandates for municipal workers. |
| The American Pharmacists Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the American College of Emergency Physicians, all of which signed a letter5 in support of Biden’s unconstitutional jab mandate for employers with 100 or more employees, after receiving grants from Pfizer. |
| The National Hispanic Medical Association, which worked with a public relations firm to distribute “press release and media placements” that “called on employers of essential workers to mandate COVID-19 vaccines.” They also lobbied in favor of Biden’s vaccine mandate — all after receiving $30,000 from BIO, a vaccine industry lobby group that represents Pfizer and Moderna. |
| The American Academy of Pediatrics, which received several specialized grants from Pfizer in 2021. State chapters also received Pfizer grants earmarked for vaccine policy lobbying efforts. |
Who Are These Institutions Working For?
As reported by UnHerd:6
“This is not the first time Pfizer has promoted its drugs to high-profile institutions. In 2009, the organization was prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department for ‘engaging in illegal off-label promotion of their drugs’ and ‘encouraging doctors to prescribe the drugs where there was no kind of regulatory authority.’
According to Fang, these donations undermine trust in such institutions: ‘Are they acting as a representative of the community? Or are they acting as corporate lobbyists, as organizations acting in the interests of their donors?’”
Indeed, as attorney Jenin Younes told Fang, “If people or institutions advocated for or implemented mandates, while failing to disclose ties to the vaccine companies, that is a serious ethical violation, and potentially even unlawful, and should be thoroughly investigated.”7
