Robert Roos is the Dutch member of the European
Parliament who earlier this week dared to post a clip of himself on Twitter
in which he railed against his government (and by extension against
all other governments which imposed the same coercive measures) for
having mandated a vaccinate which was acknowledged by a top Pfizer representative in a C19 EU Parliament
hearing on Monday as not
having been tested for transmission prevention before market launch
(see my earlier
entry).
As is usually the case with any claim made against the C19 narrative which has gained enough traction on the Internet, an article trying to debunk the claim is quickly written and issued by one of the main press agencies (Reuters, American Press, Agence France Presse, etc.) under the category ‘fact checking’. In this case, it came from the American Press, was written by Melissa Goldin and Angelo Fichera and was published under the title of ‘Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission’. The short paragraphs quoted just below should be pretty telling of not only how such ‘fact checking’ exercises are constructed (acknowledgement, then refutation usually by quoting a so-called expert and also very often by some form of ad-hominem attack), but also of their general purpose (in my opinion, they are pieces of genuine misinformation):
[...]
While Roos and many others framed this as a new revelation, Pfizer never claimed that its clinical trial, upon which the vaccine was authorized for use, evaluated the shot’s effect on transmission. In fact, shortly before the vaccine’s release, the company’s CEO emphasized that this was still being evaluated.
[...]
Asked for comment, Roos told the AP that he was not making a point about Pfizer, but about government mandates for the COVID-19 vaccines.
“I take fundamental rights seriously,” Roos wrote in an email. “For governments to infringe on them, they need a massive amount of evidence to prove the necessity. In this case, it was not even a part of the Pfizer trials.” He said that such mandates were based on “no evidence.”
But experts and research say that the COVID-19 vaccines have provided benefits in terms of limiting infections and transmission, at least with earlier variants of the virus and for a period of time after being vaccinated.
Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the vaccine center at Emory University, told the AP that the fact that Pfizer did not address the vaccine’s impact on transmission during clinical trials is not unusual, because transmission is a complex metric to measure.
[...]
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pfizer-transmission-european-parliament-950413863226
True enough, Pfizer’s press release of 21st December 2020 is a little ambiguous in this respect:
Pfizer and BioNTech Receive Authorization in the European Union for COVID-19 Vaccine
Monday, 21 December 2020 - 02:09pm
[...]
The Phase 3 trial is designed as a 1:1 vaccine candidate to placebo, randomized, observer-blinded study to obtain safety, immune response, and efficacy data needed for regulatory review. The trial’s primary endpoints are prevention of COVID-19 in those who have not been infected by SARS-CoV-2 prior to immunization, and prevention of COVID-19 regardless of whether participants have previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2. Secondary endpoints include prevention of severe COVID-19 in those groups. The study also will explore prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Data from this study, including longer term safety, comprehensive information on duration of protection, efficacy against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety and immunogenicity in adolescents 12 to 17 years of age, will be gathered in the months ahead.
[...]
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-authorization-european-union
Well, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP – which ‘is the committee that is responsible for preparing the Agency's opinions on questions concerning human medicines’), on the same date, was a little less ambiguous (page 2):
21 December 2020
EMA/660602/2020
EMEA/H/C/005735
[...]
Can Comirnaty reduce transmission of the virus from one person to another?
The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.
How long does protection from Comirnaty last?
It is not currently known how long protection given by Comirnaty lasts. The people vaccinated in theclinical trial will continue to be followed for 2 years to gather more information on the duration of protection.
[...]
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/smop-initial/chmp-summary-positive-opinion-comirnaty_en.pdf
Now, I shall leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide whether the statement of Robert Roos was justified or not and whether the purpose of the AP article was to muddy the water (misinformation) or not. By the way, this is how the statement of Robert Roos ends:
This is scandalous: millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that you do it for others. Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed. Please share this video.
As is usually the case with any claim made against the C19 narrative which has gained enough traction on the Internet, an article trying to debunk the claim is quickly written and issued by one of the main press agencies (Reuters, American Press, Agence France Presse, etc.) under the category ‘fact checking’. In this case, it came from the American Press, was written by Melissa Goldin and Angelo Fichera and was published under the title of ‘Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission’. The short paragraphs quoted just below should be pretty telling of not only how such ‘fact checking’ exercises are constructed (acknowledgement, then refutation usually by quoting a so-called expert and also very often by some form of ad-hominem attack), but also of their general purpose (in my opinion, they are pieces of genuine misinformation):
[...]
While Roos and many others framed this as a new revelation, Pfizer never claimed that its clinical trial, upon which the vaccine was authorized for use, evaluated the shot’s effect on transmission. In fact, shortly before the vaccine’s release, the company’s CEO emphasized that this was still being evaluated.
[...]
Asked for comment, Roos told the AP that he was not making a point about Pfizer, but about government mandates for the COVID-19 vaccines.
“I take fundamental rights seriously,” Roos wrote in an email. “For governments to infringe on them, they need a massive amount of evidence to prove the necessity. In this case, it was not even a part of the Pfizer trials.” He said that such mandates were based on “no evidence.”
But experts and research say that the COVID-19 vaccines have provided benefits in terms of limiting infections and transmission, at least with earlier variants of the virus and for a period of time after being vaccinated.
Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the vaccine center at Emory University, told the AP that the fact that Pfizer did not address the vaccine’s impact on transmission during clinical trials is not unusual, because transmission is a complex metric to measure.
[...]
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pfizer-transmission-european-parliament-950413863226
True enough, Pfizer’s press release of 21st December 2020 is a little ambiguous in this respect:
Pfizer and BioNTech Receive Authorization in the European Union for COVID-19 Vaccine
Monday, 21 December 2020 - 02:09pm
[...]
The Phase 3 trial is designed as a 1:1 vaccine candidate to placebo, randomized, observer-blinded study to obtain safety, immune response, and efficacy data needed for regulatory review. The trial’s primary endpoints are prevention of COVID-19 in those who have not been infected by SARS-CoV-2 prior to immunization, and prevention of COVID-19 regardless of whether participants have previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2. Secondary endpoints include prevention of severe COVID-19 in those groups. The study also will explore prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Data from this study, including longer term safety, comprehensive information on duration of protection, efficacy against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, and safety and immunogenicity in adolescents 12 to 17 years of age, will be gathered in the months ahead.
[...]
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-authorization-european-union
Well, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP – which ‘is the committee that is responsible for preparing the Agency's opinions on questions concerning human medicines’), on the same date, was a little less ambiguous (page 2):
21 December 2020
EMA/660602/2020
EMEA/H/C/005735
[...]
Can Comirnaty reduce transmission of the virus from one person to another?
The impact of vaccination with Comirnaty on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.
How long does protection from Comirnaty last?
It is not currently known how long protection given by Comirnaty lasts. The people vaccinated in theclinical trial will continue to be followed for 2 years to gather more information on the duration of protection.
[...]
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/smop-initial/chmp-summary-positive-opinion-comirnaty_en.pdf
Now, I shall leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide whether the statement of Robert Roos was justified or not and whether the purpose of the AP article was to muddy the water (misinformation) or not. By the way, this is how the statement of Robert Roos ends:
This is scandalous: millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that you do it for others. Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed. Please share this video.
[Click on the picture with the
right button of your mouse, then on ‘picture-in-picture’
in the menu and
finally place your cursor on the picture at the bottom of the
screen to display the ‘Play’
icon [i.e. the white arrow pointing towards the right] to start
the clip, which will thus play in ‘picture-in-picture’
mode.
If it does not, click on https://seed167.bitchute.com/NdBvlLUyMVaQ/PmB9VkeE7lXx.mp4.
Sources:
2:01
Rob Roos MEP
@Rob_Roos
11:04 am · 11 Oct 2022
https://twitter.com/rob_roos/status/1579759795225198593
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PmB9VkeE7lXx
15:21:25 into
https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/special-committee-on-covid-19-pandemic_20221010-1430-COMMITTEE-COVI
[added 13-10-2022]
COVI pubic hearing with the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies
12-10-2022 - 09:45
The Special Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic welcomed the representatives from five pharmaceutical companies on 10 October 2022 from 14.30 to 18.30.
Representatives from Pfizer, Curevac, Novavax, GSK and HIPRA shared their views on past and present manufacturing, distribution and equitable access of the COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. The debate focud [sic] on the activities undertaken to develop vaccines for new variants, the authorisation process, and transparency of contracts.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/covi-pubic-hearing-with-the-representati/product-details/20221004CAN67123
Lausanne, the above was published on the fifteenth day of the tenth month of the year two thousand and twenty-two.
2:01
Rob Roos MEP
@Rob_Roos
11:04 am · 11 Oct 2022
https://twitter.com/rob_roos/status/1579759795225198593
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PmB9VkeE7lXx
15:21:25 into
https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/special-committee-on-covid-19-pandemic_20221010-1430-COMMITTEE-COVI
[added 13-10-2022]
COVI pubic hearing with the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies
12-10-2022 - 09:45
The Special Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic welcomed the representatives from five pharmaceutical companies on 10 October 2022 from 14.30 to 18.30.
Representatives from Pfizer, Curevac, Novavax, GSK and HIPRA shared their views on past and present manufacturing, distribution and equitable access of the COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. The debate focud [sic] on the activities undertaken to develop vaccines for new variants, the authorisation process, and transparency of contracts.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/covi-pubic-hearing-with-the-representati/product-details/20221004CAN67123
Lausanne, the above was published on the fifteenth day of the tenth month of the year two thousand and twenty-two.
