Two recent tweets from Dr. Robert Malone shed light on two matters that have puzzled some.
Question: Why do you people resist experimental gene therapy injections? Malone indicated yesterday that resistance appears to arise from information. So this tweet explains that:
This is key. The most hesitant are the most educated. https://t.co/foi5At4kdJ— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 8, 2021
Question: Why are we hearing so little about adverse effects from the gene therapy injections? Especially, for example, from some very heavily injected countries? It seems the Pfizer--for one--enters into contractual agreements with governments that protect Pfizer not only from liability but even from adverse publicity:
This is key to understanding "what the heck is going on". Apparently in Israel, I am told by Israeli scientist, the agreement between Pfizer and the government is that no adverse events from the vax are to be disclosed for a minimum of 10 years. https://t.co/aLcLUpVQHP— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 8, 2021
Information security expert on revealed Pfizer agreements: ‘There’s good reason Pfizer fought to hide the details of these contracts’
Excerpts from the contract boilerplate--it may differ from country to country in the details, but the basics remain pretty much the same. While the term "adverse effects" doesn't appear below, I think it's probably reasonable to assume that the Israeli scientist who spoke with Malone understands the thrust of the confidentiality agreement.
‘Purchaser acknowledges…the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.
“‘Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…’
“Confidentiality, part 1: ‘Each Recipient shall safeguard the confidential and proprietary nature of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as it holds its own confidential or proprietary information of like kind’:
“Confidentiality, part 2: ‘Recipient shall disclose Confidential Information only to such of its Representatives who have a need to know such Confidential Information to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement’:
“‘The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years’:
"...the agreement between Pfizer and the government is that no adverse events from the vax are to be disclosed for a minimum of 10 years."ReplyDelete
The FDA would be irresponsible to grant approval for the vaccine until all such Confidential information has been published.
Key word, approval. I doubt we'll see these "approved" they are experimental.
Clicking through to the language of the agreement, it looks like pretty standard confidentiality language, and the definition of CI does not appear to include adverse events. Failure to disclose adverse events seems more likely to be government failure, not driven by the agreement with Pfizer, unless there is more to the agreement than shown.Delete
I'm no expert on such agreements, and I admit that I put more weight on the source explanation to Malone. My thought was that data about effects could be considered 'proprietary' as leading to further development of the medication. While the language may appear standard, the context--an experimental vaccine being pushed on an uninformed public--is not standard for such agreements, especially since those receiving it are not parties to the contract. The failure of Moderna to report all adverse events to VAERS in the US (and I suspect Pfizer is in the same boat) gives me pause, as well.Delete
Dman, I'm thinking let's not get caught up in their semantic games. Whatever the FDA says or does doesn't change the fact that they pushed this experiment on half the world ( and seem to aim rather desperately to push it on the rest). There are way too many permutations to the effects, who will die who will be neurologically damaged or suffer brain fog or be rendered infertile, etc, we know at least one, and very very likely many more. The crime against humanity is pushing the investigational vaccine on the entire population. The place to focus our attention is on the "leaky" justification they used and are using to try to cover their crime - that COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus with no known treatments that will kill you if you catch it. This is a patent lie. Go to ukcolumn.org click on the Symposium I and fast forward to the very end. Brit Doctor whose name I forget summarizes this all very succinctly. In short, he says a covid-19 infection is "ludicrously easy to treat.". That right there is you're smoking gun. But if you need more evidence to grasp the enormity of this (aside from the fact that you can hear testimony from about 50 experts in their field in the symposiums who are convinced of it) you only need to look to how the medical establishment is denying completely the "efficacy" of our natural immunity. Again, same Doc "many of us (likely) have or had broad-based natural immunity to Covid-19 from dealing with other coronaviruses".Delete
@Mso too late. Nuremberg code requires doctors who administer the jab of this experimental technology to inform the subject of pretty much even the remotest risk to his health and safety. Now, since we don't know what all of the risks are, only some of them, because this mass rollout is essentially the phase III trial, it is not possible for them to get informed consent. How many of the jabbed received information on the rate of hospitalization and death from Covid in their age cohort? You think any child is receiving that information? Without pressure and coercion, no one would consent to a medical experiment with unknown risks to guard against an outcome he stands next to zero chance of experiencing. No one. Not to mention how many were not checked for antibodies before being jabbed, nor advised of alternative treatments, the exact opposite of providing the subject with full information to give informed consent. Period. We don't need to wait 6 months to find out if everyone who is vaxxed falls over dead. The enormity of this is already upon us. Mark AReplyDelete
wish I knew the answer, sigh...possibly die now from Covid or later from adverse vaccine reaction?ReplyDelete
I am so reminded of the Mad Cow dustup when I was stationed in West Germany in the 80s. Since I am a carnivore, I was not supposed to donate blood for fear of transmission of Mad Cow to some poor soul in need of plasma. That being said, I am a universal donor and always figured that if given a choice between dying immediately of blood loss or 40 years later from BSE, I'd take the blood then and play the odds later...but, as old Montaigne used to say: Que sais-je?