Pfizer Concedes Risk To Young People From Vaccine
What was once "misinformation" and a "conspiracy theory" is now acknowledged by the Big Pharma giant. Learn more.
There was no shortage of big news stories that continued to develop while I spent the last couple weeks on a vacation in Ireland. There was the Islamic assault on the Holy Land, the Speaker of the House fight that continues to lay bare the deep divisions in the Republican Party, and Robert F. Kennedy Junior officially launching his independent presidential bid. I had anticipated writing about these topics, and I’m sure that’s in the near future.
But to me, the biggest story was buried in a press release issued by Pfizer last Friday, October 13. Hidden deep within a lengthy release that discussed the pharma giant’s plans for the future and their financial reports, was an admission that one of the criticisms launched against the COVID-19 vaccine turns out to be true.
Critics of the COVID-19 vaccine said it placed young people—specifically high school kids, and particularly boys—at a greater risk of myocarditis, which is the inflammation of the heart muscle and causes a range of potential problems in the short and long-term. Given that these young people were at the least risk from the virus itself—it seemed like the vaccine might be a cure worse than the disease, at least for this particular demographic. And, if this were true, then for schools to actually mandate the vaccine for any reason whatsoever, would be worse than foolish—it would be inhumane.
You can guess what happened. People—including doctors—who tried to raise these concerns were called “conspiracy theorists” who disseminated “misinformation.” The vaccinations rolled on. And the money flowed into Big Pharma’s coffers.
Now, with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reporting that only 2 percent of the American public has gotten the latest edition of the vaccine, the cash flow has mostly dried up and Pfizer has apparently decided they can start telling the truth—albeit carefully tucked away in press releases that will mostly go unread. This is what they now have to say:
I guess it wasn’t misinformation after all. It joins the recent admission by the CDC that Ivermectin actually is useful for treating COVID-19 as “conspiracy theories” that were true all along.
There are so many things that could be said in response to this, but I’m going to limit myself to three questions that I believe everyone—regardless of their opinion on the vaccine itself—should be asking
Will any local news outlets report this?
Forget the major corporate media outlets. They’re gone, bought up by Big Pharma through advertising dollars and completely in the tank for what has turned into a political agenda. But most people trust their local news. Will that seemingly honest anchor that leads your local programming at roughly 10 PM every night bother to tell you this?
If they don’t tell you this important information, are you ready to turn them off? Because if they don’t know about this press release, then they really aren’t very good at their job, given that I found it on a bus ride from the airport to my condo yesterday afternoon. And if they do know about this information and have declined to share it, do they really have the best interests of the community they serve at heart?
Will your doctor tell you this?
Okay, maybe the local news might miss a few paragraphs craftily hidden in plain sight by Pfizer and ignored by corrupt national media outlets, but surely your doctor will be on top of it and talk it over with you, right? It can’t be unreasonable to think that a doctor entrusted with your health and that of your family would know about a subject that some clown tapping out a Substack article on a Friday afternoon is aware of, right? Of course the doctor will have context to offer that people like me won’t, but I’m sure they’ll want to update you with this new information and go into a deeper discussion of pros and cons, so you can make the kind of “informed consent” decision that true medical freedom relies on. And least that would seem the minimum that one could expect from a doctor. I guess we’ll find out.
What will the schools do?
This should be the easiest decision of all. In light of this admission by Pfizer—it would seem that any attempt to mandate—or even promote—the vaccine to students—has moved into the category of pure recklessness. If the school your kids go to continues to push a vaccine that it’s own manufacturer acknowledges risks heart problems, I think we can all just tune them out every time one of their leaders starts bleating about how much they care about kids.
In the legal field there’s a term called admission against interest. It means that when a party in a legal matter makes a statement that clearly runs against their interests, that statement can be introduced as evidence. It’s considered reasonably likely to be true because a party—even an otherwise untrustworthy one—isn’t likely to say it unless it’s really true.
So, in this context, it means that people certainly don’t have to take my word for it on issues like the risks posed to teenagers by the COVID-19 vaccine. They don’t even have to take the word of obviously qualified, but slandered, doctors like Robert Malone. But that’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m simply proposing that when Pfizer tells you what they did to your kids, consider believing them.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-amends-us-government-paxlovid-supply-agreement-and