PFIZER: NO ONE WAS FORCED TO TAKE THE JAB

And they have no idea why it causes myocarditis either

By Oliver May

NO ONE was forced to take the ‘vaccine’, injuries and deaths are a matter for government not us and we do not understand why jabs cause myocarditis and pericarditis, say Pfizer and Moderna.

Giving testimony to the Senate Hearing in Australia, Dr Krishan Thiru, Pfizer Australia’s medical director and Dr Brian Hewitt, head of regulatory affairs. also failed to answer repeated questions on why their jabs cause myocarditis and pericarditis.

Despite threats of no jab, no job, strongly worded coercive language from politicians and bullying and name calling by public figures, Dr Hewitt claims “no one was forced to take the ‘vaccine’ [in the following exchanges, News Uncut have put single quotation marks around the word ‘vaccine’ where it is mentioned by those speaking, to denote that it is not, in fact, a true vaccine].

Senator Pauline Hanson (below) said: “Dr Hewitt, you actually made a comment that, ‘no one was forced to have the vaccination’. You were in Australia during Covid 19. You must have been fully aware that people – nurses, doctors – people, in order to keep their jobs, were forced to have the vaccination. Now do you retract your statement?”

Dr Hewitt said: “No Senator, I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a ‘vaccine’. Mandates and vaccine requirements are determined by government and health authorities. I believe everybody was offered an opportunity to get a ‘vaccine’ or not get a ‘vaccine’. I do not believe that anybody was forced to take a ‘vaccine’.”

Ms Hanson said: “A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one.”

The pair were also grilled by Senator Gerard Rennick, who said: “Initially when the ‘vaccine’ was rolled out, myocarditis and pericarditis was not a recognised side effect.

“Does Pfizer understand why the ‘vaccine’ caused myocarditis and pericarditis? And if not, how then can it guarantee that it’s not also injuring other organs?”

Dr Thiru said: “Based on our clinical trials and pharmacovigilance data, as well as real world evidence, following the distribution now of billions of doses of ‘vaccine’, we retain confidence, strong confidence, in the safety profile of the ‘vaccine’.”

Cutting across, Senator Rennick said: “Sorry, Chair, point of order. I’ve asked do you understand why it causes myocarditis? I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis. Do you understand why it causes myocarditis?

Dr Thiru (below, right, next to Dr Hewitt) continued: “Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporally associated with ‘vaccination’.

“According to public health experts and regulatory authorities around the globe, the number of reports of myocarditis remains small.”

Cutting across again, Senator Rennick said: “I’m not referring to the number of reports. I want you to explain to me the mechanism of how the ‘vaccine’ causes myocarditis, or do you not understand the mechanism of why the ‘vaccine’ causes myocarditis? It looks to me like you don’t. And if you don’t understand it, why are you saying the ‘vaccine’ is safe without qualifying the risks?”

Dr Thiru continued: “All medicines, all therapeutic products and vaccines have benefits and have side effects as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for Pfizer’s Covid 19 ‘vaccine’, regulatory authorities, health authorities, experts globally, including in Australia, within the department of health and the TGA [Therapeutic Goods Administration, equivalent to MHRA in the UK] have maintained that the benefit-risk ratio...”

Senator Rennick cut across for the third time, saying: “That’s not the question I asked. I asked, can you explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis? Yes or no?”

Dr Thiru said: “Senator, the benefit-risk...”

Cutting across for a fourth time, Senator Rennick (below) said: “Yes or no? So you clearly don’t understand the pathway do you? Because you can’t explain it. I’m not referring to the cost-benefit analysis here. I’m referring to, do you understand the biochemical pathway as to why the ‘vaccine’ causes damage to the heart?”

Dr Thiru added: “I’m happy to take your question on notice and come back to the committee with whatever information we can provide.”

When questioning Moderna, Senator Rennick asked: “What percentage of profits does Moderna allocate to help people who have been injured by the vaccine?”

A representative of Moderna said: “I was going to say, erm, that, er, that, er, there is, er, a sort of, er, an indemnity for Covid 19 suppliers but, er, indemnity is a policy matter for government to decide, I can’t comment.”

Senator Rennick replied: “So Moderna doesn’t put any of its profits back into helping the victims of injuries from the Moderna ‘vaccine’, is that correct?”

Answering, the Moderna spokesperson (below, centre) said: “Moderna is a company that focuses on manufacturing vaccines. The matter of indemnity, er, for, er, vaccine suppliers is a matter for government.”

Senator Rennick said: “So you are not prepared to underwrite the risk of your own ‘vaccine’? You’re not prepared to actually put money where your mouth is when it comes to the safety of your ‘vaccines’, is that correct? Just yes or no, you’re not prepared to underwrite the safety of your own ‘vaccine’?”

Moderna continued: “We take safety of our vaccines very seriously. We have a very good pharmacovigilance process in place in fact a very comprehensive one. However, I would reiterate that, er, erm, indemnities are a matter for policy makers.”

Senator Rennick cut across, adding: “But what about from a moral, social conscience, of putting some of your profits back in to helping victims of the ‘vaccine’? Zero? Is it zero dollars? I’ll just take that as a zero, thank you.”

Writing on Twitter after the hearing, Senator Rennick went on to address the claims by Pfizer that their jab was effective in preventing Covid 19 infection. He said: “Despite claiming the vaccine was effective in preventing infection, Pfizer can’t explain why over 10 million people in Australia caught Covid less than 10 months after opening international borders.

“The excuse by Pfizer that the virus mutated doesn’t cut it. Unlike other pathogens such as bacteria and double stranded DNA viruses (smallpox), single stranded mRNA viruses mutate very easily. 

“That’s why the design of the ‘vaccine’ in regards to efficacy was flawed from the start because it needed it build up resistance to all 29 proteins in the Covid virus (I said ‘vaccine’ in the clip - my apologies). 

“Instead the ‘vaccine’ only protects against the spike protein meaning that there was no protection against the other 28 proteins. As a result, the moment the spike protein mutated the ‘vaccine’ became ineffective against the new mutation. 

“Not to mention the speed at which antibodies and T Cells dropped off at 35 days in regards to the original strain. Spending money on a ‘vaccine’ with such a short immune response but significant and unknown safety risks is reckless.”