Pfizer and Moderna execs offered a masterclass in dishonesty during Australian Senate hearing – LifeSite

(LifeSiteNews) – The insouciance and cynicism of the testimony of Pfizer and Moderna executives during a recent Australian Senate hearing was as predictable as it was incriminating. If nothing else the representatives demonstrated that they could follow the instructions of their spin doctors by repeatedly using sophistry, mis-direction, legalistic concealment, and red herrings.  

The dissimulation seemed to come as something of a surprise to the Senators, who have been amongst the few Australian politicians to stand up against COVID tyranny, which has profoundly damaged Australia’s society and institutions – not to mention killed and injured many. But they should not have been shocked. As any business journalist who is paying attention finds out soon enough, dishonesty is what corporations deal in. They may not always lie outright, but nothing they say is ever the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Governments before COVID tended to be a little less dishonest, but now they, too, are aggressively participating in the debauch of duplicity. 

Although the Senators made little headway in getting honest responses, in one sense the attempt at spin was a failure. The news story about the representatives’ disgraceful non-answers went around the world, contributing to an increasingly widespread understanding that pharmaceutical companies both have a lot to hide and are deeply untrustworthy.  

The trickery certainly suggested the concealment of guilt. When Senator Pauline Hanson confronted Brian Hewitt, Pfizer Australia’s Head of Regulatory Sciences, about his comment that no one was forced to have the vaccination,” Hewitt said he “believed firmly” that no one was coerced. Of course, it depends on what your definition of “forced” is, but it is also revealing that he did not say the forcing did not happen. Instead, he said he “believed” it did not happen.  

— Article continues below Petition —
Tell the DNC that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. MUST be allowed to debate Joe Biden on vaccines!
  Show Petition Text
4482 have signed the petition.
Let’s get to 5000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text

The Democratic National Committe (DNC), party insiders and much of the mainstream media are intent on preventing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from having any primary debate with Joe Biden, all the while demonising RFK’s position on vaccines, lockdowns and treatments for COVID-19.

To prevent debate is blatantly anti-democratic, however.

Join us therefore in demanding that the DNC allow a vaccine debate between Joe Biden and RFK, finally letting Americans consider the other side of this key issue.


With the Democratic primary approaching, it behooves us to reflect on public health policies, especially with respect to the past three years, when draconian vaccine mandates seriously injured over 200,000 Americans and killed over 28,000 according to VAERS data.

We want facts and evidence, transparency and proper studies instead of censorship. We have a right to be consulted. The DNC’s refusal to allow primary debates is undemocratic, and keeps us ignorant of the facts we need to know. Health is not a partisan issue. 

The vaccine schedule has been imposed on our children for over twenty years without industry standard safety testing. We’ve seen a simultaneous increase in various chronic illnesses and conditions in childhood.

Companies like Pfizer, which have paid out billions of dollars for criminal malfeasance in the past, are now disincentivized from doing gold standard placebo/control group safety testing, all the while taking in billions of dollars in profit from compelled vaccination programs. They are also inexplicably shielded from COVID vaccine-injury compensation claims by the governments they supply.

By their own admission, the only ones who have immunity is them. 
Our voices are not being heard. We are not being consulted and informed. Fear campaigns are not scientific studies. The scientific method requires discussion and debate.

We therefore demand that the DNC allows RFK to debate Joe Biden on vaccines.

SIGN: Let your candidates debate this key public health question 

Once you have signed our petition, please share it with as many people as possible – as citizens, everybody needs to be informed.

It is our right in a liberal democracy. The emergency is over. Let’s look at how we’ve done. The voting public must be allowed to listen to a debate between Robert Kennedy and Joe Biden.  

Share this petition among your friends and neighbours. One’s health is no small matter. Let them debate! 

  Hide Petition Text

This is a technique often used in court. Because it is not possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt what is in a person’s mind, it is not possible to prove they are lying when they say they believed something is true. Score one to the spin doctors.  

Senator Alex Antic cited statistics showing that cases of myocarditis spiked precipitously in South Australia following introduction of the COVID injections; there was a similar pattern when boosters were introduced. Queensland Senator Gerard Rennick followed up by asking whether the representatives could identify how Pfizer’s mRNA COVID injections were causing heart disease: “Can you explain the process, why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis?” 

 Obviously, the executives could not go on record identifying such a mechanism. Stonewalling was required.  

Krishan Thiru, Pfizer Australia’s Country Medical Director first tried to redirect attention by expressing his “confidence in the safety profile” of the jabs. Rennick testily cut him off and asked the question again. Thiru took another tack, saying Pfizer is “aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with the vaccine,” which was both misleading – there have been deaths and long-term damage from the jab – and once more did not answer the question. Rennick asked again. Thiru again referred to the “small” number of reports of myocarditis. Rennick said that he was not interested in the number of reports, he wanted to know “the mechanism of how the vaccine causes myocarditis.”

Thiru deflected once more by citing the jabs’ allegedly justifiable benefit-risk ratio, which Rennick incorrectly called the cost-benefit ratio. Thiru jumped on this irrelevant error, hoping to obfuscate. But when Rennick persisted with the same question he ran for the exit, saying he would have to “come back” to the committee with “whatever information we can provide” – which will, of course, be no information at all.  

The Moderna representatives used the same strategy when Antic asked Chris Clarke, Moderna’s Director, Scientific Leadership what the overall rate of serious vaccine injury was for its COVID product. At first Clarke admitted that he did not know “the actual rates of adverse events” although he claimed it was about the same as the placebo – which was curious given that he had just admitted that he did not know what it was. Then, when Antic persisted, he said the company could “provide that information on notice” – which of course they won’t. 

Perhaps the most vile response came to a question from Senator Matthew Canavan who asked if Pfizer tested its vaccine prior to the rollout to see if it stopped or reduced transmission of the disease. Three times Thiru read from a prepared statement to the effect that the company was “required to show that the vaccine was safe and effective in preventing illness, in preventing severe disease and preventing hospitalisations.” 

Thiru could not have given an honest answer because if he admitted that transmission had not been studied – which was implied anyway by his refusal to answer the question; if they had tested successfully he would have said so – then the rationale for the extreme lockdowns that so harmed Australia would disappear.  

One of the reasons behind the Australian judiciary’s failure to protect basic citizens’ rights during the “pandemic” was that feckless judges were able to hide behind the notion that the vaccines stopped transmission so therefore it was in the collective interest to force them on people. 

It was good quality parliamentary theatre, but there might have been other questions asked that the spin doctors could not have anticipated. Why, for instance, did Pfizer send a special batch to its employees in Australia? 

Another question that would have put them on the spot was: “Did you manufacture the so-called vaccines?” In the case of Moderna the answer is definitely “no.” The company has never made an actual medical product; it is only now about to start building one of its first facilities in Clayton in Melbourne. It is less clear how much manufacturing was done by Pfizer, but it is certain that most production of the billions of vials was done by sub-contractors to the U.S. Department of Defence in a project called Operation Warp Speed. Pfizer’s main role seems only to have been to do demonstrations of manufacturing scale. 

A further question might have been: “Was the manufacturing subject to quality controls (it was not) or product checking (it was not)?” This could have been followed by: “Did Pfizer send its employees a special batch because it knew how sloppy the manufacturing was?” That would really have required some gymnastic dishonesty. 


Australian politicians grill Pfizer and Moderna execs over COVID jab heart injuries