Pfizer Shock Admission: Covid Shot Never Tested For Stopping Transmission
A Dutch Member of the European Parliament appeared to score a bombshell admission when he asked a representative of Pfizer whether their Covid "vaccine" was ever tested to see if it stopped transmission - the whole rationale behind vax mandates and passports. Pfizer representative said, "no." Also today, the Moderna shot actually has a NEGATIVE effectiveness after a few months. And...why won't Sweden share the results of its Nordstream sabotage investigation with Russia? Hiding something?
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good morning.
Doing well.
Good.
Good.
You get your shots?
Yeah.
Tell you what, we're still, you know, I keep thinking that the important issue for me personally right now is the insanity of our foreign policy, what's going on in the world.
We're broke and all the money going around the world.
And I was going to suggest we need to concentrate on that.
Well, we do, but even more.
So what do we do?
The first two points I want to make today, believe it or not, has to do with COVID.
There's news in there.
It's important stuff.
But then again, that's another war.
That's a domestic war that we have to deal with and what was going on there.
But more information is coming out, and it is tragic.
It's sad.
It shows how wicked some people are.
But we'll start with one story by Zero Hedge about Pfizer.
I mean, we've known about Pfizer and, you know, the president is safe and secure from all infections forever and all that nonsense that goes on.
But an executive at a hearing admitted that they never tested anything.
They did not know, and they all know they did not know.
Yet they went all out there and lied.
I consider that fraud dangerous and illegal.
They should be punished for it.
It isn't like an unintended mistake.
People make mistakes all the time.
They still might be liable and all this.
But this was very deliberate.
And now they're admitting this, and the people who were suffered were Hoodway.
You know, you see some comments now.
Almost apologetic.
I'm sorry I supported that.
I'm sorry I took the shots.
It was all based on a lie.
So that to me is a real tragedy.
And the truth is coming out.
But, you know, it's something that people don't want to believe.
You know, not too many people come forward and say, well, I didn't investigate it.
I'm not a doctor.
I just do what I'm told.
And they want to go on and get by it.
But we don't know the end point of how many people have suffered from this.
There's a lot of suffering that's already occurred, and it's a lot yet to come.
So I think this is just horrible.
But the best we can do is help get this information out and get people to be more alert and to be more cautious.
Hopefully find a doctor that you can trust that will help you figure these things out.
But listening to a doctor who's a politician, you know, and doing it for political reason, Dr. Fauci did not provide any service for anybody except his own bank account.
Yeah, that's for sure.
And we owe thanks to a Dutch member of the European Parliament, Rob Roos, who probably sounded like a Dutch Rand Paul because he actually asked a good question.
So this was a meeting of the European Parliament.
We can put that first thing up.
This is from EPOC Times via Zero Hedge.
Pfizer exec admits under oath we never tested COVID vaccine against transmission.
And so let's do the next one.
This is Rob Roos himself, the member of European Parliament.
He says, in a COVID hearing, Pfizer director admits vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.
And then he says, get vaccinated for others was always a lie.
The only purpose of the COVID vaccine, forcing people to get vaccinated.
And there is, if you go to that, you can see the video of it.
And let's go to the next one now.
This is the exact question that he asked during this session.
He said, was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?
Did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market?
And she said, no.
You know, we had to really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market.
And it's a wild admission.
And if you watch the exchange, she could have been clearer.
So my guess is you're going to see a correction done by Pfizer.
She probably accidentally spoke the truth and it'll be clarified.
But Dr. Paul, if this is the case, and it indeed appears to be the case, the whole rationale for everything they did, the vaccine mandates, the vaccine passports, the brutal discrimination against people who did not want to take that particular medicine, that was all completely unjustified.
It was all based on a lie, if this is the case.
Joe Biden, as you said before the show, if you take these shots, you won't get COVID.
And then he took them and got COVID twice.
So, I mean, everything is blown out of the water if what this Pfizer executive, and she's the president of International Developed Markets, what she said in the hearing.
You know, that quote you used, it really has an explanation in there that helps us understand this.
She said, no, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science.
Science.
It is at the speed of fraud and lying about science.
They don't even believe in science.
They don't believe in natural immunity.
So she's justifying the speed of science to know what is taking place.
You know, we have to admit that it wasn't just five or ten Democrats that were involved in this.
How many people?
We know a few and a few were close to us who stood up and said, go, wait, wait, wait.
But there were too many Republicans.
How did all this stuff get pacifist and where did the money come from?
It's sort of like the way they do the foreign policy stuff, fear and get people scared to death and patriotism.
You didn't do it.
And it was this argument.
It's good for the whole.
Oh, yeah, I'm not doing it for myself.
I'm doing it for the community.
Not a very good philosophy to have because who is the community?
Fauci, he's the community.
You do what he tells you because they'll put a guilt trip on you or punish you.
You know, it isn't just psychological.
It's a physical punishment by we will cancel you.
You're going to lose your job.
You're going to lose your profession.
You won't be a doctor.
All of this stuff.
This is an evil, monstrous process that went on.
And it's good to know that it's breaking out that more and more people are realizing.
But don't you think one evidence that there's more and more people understanding this, they have a lot of booster shots packed away.
Nobody wants them.
What is it?
Two or three percent to them.
Yeah, nobody wants them.
Thank goodness that they didn't all take that or they use it up.
But some people who bought them didn't worry.
The Pfizer, the people who were selling these vaccines, they're not worried about it.
And the people who didn't get it, now that they know about it, they're not worried about it.
But there's a lot of profiteering with it.
And they're just fine with it all.
And they weren't bashful.
When you catch them off guard, they will admit that there was a lot of money to be made in this.
And you make a great point.
They admit that they didn't bother testing to see if it stops transmission, but they say they didn't do scientific tests in the name of science.
Okay, I don't get that part.
But this leaves the last leg.
If this is true, if this plays out, if they don't make a correction, this means the last leg that the whole theory of these shots has to stand on is that they, of course, they prevented the deaths.
Okay, maybe they didn't prevent transmission, but they prevented deaths.
And even this woman said later in the hearing, she said, we are responsible for saving 4 million lives.
But the reality is, which we said all the time during the COVID era, this is a virus with a 99 plus percent survival rate for people.
So you can't make the claim that you would have otherwise died if we already knew that there's a very small, very narrow category of people that this is a dangerous virus for.
People that already have cancer and heart disease and whatever, this, that, and the other.
So the last leg they have to stand on is a very shaky claim that they saved lives because we just don't know what would have happened anyway with the virus that 99 plus percent people survived.
And we don't know how many more cases of myocarditis will come up.
And of course, yesterday there was the report that they were admitting that a male under 40 should never even take the shots.
Well, how about a male over 40?
Yeah, you know, if you're under 100, you shouldn't take it.
Yeah.
And no, they're backpedaling now too because all these kids are suddenly dying.
I saw a thing that was in one of the British papers.
It was a headline saying, video games may cause sudden heart attacks among young kids.
So, okay, then hold on.
That just happened?
Hmm.
That didn't happen three years ago.
They didn't have heart attacks from video games.
So they're trying to march around.
The other thing I was thinking of, Dr. Paul, about this, think of all the military families' lives that have been ruined.
The breadwinner, the breadwinners of the family in the U.S. military, they do make a lot of sacrifices, regardless of what you think of our foreign policy.
How many of those were forced to take this?
And those that refused, they were kicked out.
We know some folks, some friends of ours close to the Mises, where the husband was kicked out, or he had to leave the military because he didn't want to take the shot.
How many military lives?
And you wonder why no one wants to join the military anymore.
You realize this really takes away that false cover, that false curtain, to show what the government really thinks of members of the military.
You're just a bunch of guinea pigs.
You do what we say.
We don't care about you.
You know, back to the subject of putting a guilt trip on people.
You know, you're unpatriotic.
They use that same thing if you didn't support the wars overseas.
But they use another thing that's used in the hot wars, and that is the whole idea of calling somebody a terrorist.
Ever since 9-11, that is a cliche milk to death and definitions, everything.
But all you have to do is say, that guy's a terrorist.
They've been using that in politics forever.
So they mix that in there too.
You'd think there would be a time where they would become a little more humble.
But the main thing is that somebody who doesn't have a set of standards, doesn't believe in a higher law, there is no guilt.
They have no shame.
The people who now are being caught on it, believe that, they'll rationalize it easy enough.
They'll say, well, we didn't know all this.
They'll make an excuse.
But they're the kind of people who would never blame themselves.
And a good person will recognize that we all make mistakes and things can happen.
I was misled.
And there's an excuse.
But explain it.
Explain it to yourself, or you might one day wake up with a justified guilt complex is what might happen and be yourself sick about the whole mess.
Negative Effectiveness Explained00:02:03
But it's the whole idea of who's in charge, is the government in charge, and the government took over medicine, something that should be more delicately distributed through consultation with doctor-patient relationships.
And if you think you're not getting the right advice, and most doctors say go someplace else or get a combination, study it, and look at it instead of saying there's only one thing you can do, and you have to do it this way.
And we can repeal history and science.
There just isn't any such thing as natural immunity.
So forget it, go back to work.
It's pretty bad.
Well, it's like Del Bigtree said we had him on the show.
You don't basically don't even need doctors anymore if you follow this rule.
You go to a kiosk, enter in your symptoms, and out pops your pills.
There's no doctor at all.
Well, let's move on.
This is kind of COVID day, at least in the beginning, because there's some amazing news from the other mRNA vaccine, Moderna.
Let's put up that next clip.
This is from EPOC Times.
Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness turns negative within months, according to a new study.
And put the next one on because this explains what it was.
This is a study that's awaiting peer review, but it was says, so this is about the Moderna's booster.
The effectiveness of three doses, a primary series and booster against infection remained above 50%.
Even that itself is not that great after 150 days against one of the sub-variants of Omicron.
However, against more recent strains, including currently dominant BA5, the effectiveness turns negative after 150 days.
And Dr. Paul, as I highlighted here, if you're looking at this, if you're looking at our video, negative effectiveness means that a vaccinated person is more likely to contract COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, than an unvaccinated person.
Three Shots: Not Always Protective00:03:25
You're more likely to get it if you've had the shot than if you didn't.
And it's scaled against everything they do because if you happen to have had three shots, you're worse off than if you just had two shots.
The more you get and the more frightened they get.
And some of the politicians must, I don't know how you describe it, because you can't put them into this, all of them, into the same category of COVID or Pfizer executives who are making millions of dollars.
But they go along and they take these shots and display it.
How about some of the tragic things with some good, well-known celebrities and ball players?
They go and get a shot and try to do their patriotic duty and get people to say, it's okay, it's okay, I can do it.
And then they themselves on, you know, just stupidity.
It is.
People have to believe that government is incapable of making personal decisions.
This one is magnified because we've seen it and so much effort was put into it.
But that is a general principle that should hold true.
Some bureaucrat someplace, you know, the epitome of it is a Fauci person that does so much harm.
But that can be done on an individual basis and it's done all the time.
But In a free society and one that's more responsible, we'll say, I have the responsibility of this, taking care of myself and getting the information I need, not to hope that some bureaucrat, some politician all of a sudden is a saint and knows exactly what should be done.
So this is a real tragedy, which I'm hoping that people will be more cautious in the future.
But I don't think they give up easily.
Just think of how bad the wars have gone in our country since World War II, especially.
All the undeclared war and all the deaths and all the money and everything else.
They never changed the policy.
The policies always stay the same.
Interventionism and that's an interventionism in our personal lives and in medical care.
It's gotten much, much worse.
But when I started medicine, Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist, so I had a brief exposure to an emphasis on doctor-patient relationship.
But that's long gone.
There's a lot of good medicine out there, let me tell you.
I know that.
But it's still sad that the responsibility isn't on the patient and looking for advice from a personal advisor rather than the government.
Yeah.
Well, let's put on that next clip because I just want to make the point here, Dr. Paul, that this study was not done by an anti-vaccine group.
It wasn't done by some crazed out people.
Well, maybe they are crazy, but that's different.
Researchers with Moderna and Kaiser Permanente, which carried out the study.
So this is Moderna researching its own vaccine and Kaiser Permanente, which is obviously very mainstream.
And they discovered, as you said, Dr. Paul, that if you get three shots, you're more likely to get COVID than if you get two.
Russia Tests Drones00:09:24
So let's recap.
It won't stop transmission.
It may cause your heart to blow up.
And the more shots you get, the more likely you're to get it.
So go out and get your shots, right?
That's the conclusion, obviously.
So that just shows what a crazy clown world I guess we're living in.
Yeah, it's a bad system.
There's no doubt about it.
And I wonder when we did the, you may remember, when did we do the first program sort of waving a flag, slow up, slow up, this is not the way to do that.
A couple years ago, right?
Yeah, probably like March of 2020 when it first started.
So it's there.
I just hope that the people learned the lesson.
That's it.
Well, let's move on to the other big thing that's happening, of course, that we've been following closely, and that's the ongoing NATO-Russia war.
Let's just call it what it is.
NATO-Russia war with Ukraine as a sacrificial lamb.
Let's put on this next clip, if you can.
This is from Politico.
NATO pivots to sending Ukraine air defenses after Russian missile attacks.
Now, this is a classic example, and I click this next part because this is a classic example of how the media lies and distorts the mainstream media.
Russia bombarded civilian targets across Ukraine this weekend in retaliation for bombing of its bridge to Crimea.
Moscow struck a dozen cities, hitting children's playground and pedestrian bridges.
Now, it doesn't mean that you approve of the strikes or you think it's wonderful to blow up Ukraine, but the actual reality is that what Russia did is took out the power generating stations and the rail lines because the rail lines were delivering weapons and the power generating stations were considered infrastructure targets.
It's pretty gross.
It's pretty bad.
However, when you remember the shock and awe of when the U.S. went into Iraq, I think 7,000 people were killed in shock and awe in that first period.
You see how the Baghdad sky was lit up with dozens and dozens barrages of missiles and you never hear about that.
So anyway, with that said and done, NATO has decided that they're going to shift and now there's going to be some goodies for the air defense manufacturers.
We're going to send some new stuff over to Ukraine.
But you know, there's an interesting point in here that, you know, is along with what you just said.
Who makes the good drones and where do they come from?
We know that it's our money and our taxpayers and we have a lot to do with it.
We're selling these weapons and we perpetuate wars like in Saudi Arabia against Yemen and all this stuff.
But the report says that they were using drones, the Russians were using drones from Iran.
Now that to me is remarkable, probably true, but I don't know because I really haven't come across that.
But just think that Iran is that far along.
What do we do?
We just push them further and further away.
And then we do have a pretense about, oh, we're still talking to them about denuclearizing the world.
But that is something.
So it may be that it's going to turn out that, you know, the Russians aren't quite as good at militarism that they thought.
It may be that Iran is stronger than they think.
The alliances between Russia and Iran and China may be stronger than anybody realizes right now.
But what if they come to a conclusion that our financial system is fragile and it could have an effect on our ability to finance an empire forever, all empires and with bankruptcy.
But there's a lot of faking and fraud going on with the system and we're still king of the hill.
But I tell you what, the world will change when that becomes known to everybody because the country that is the leader, they desert the king of the hill rather quickly as well as that currency.
Right now, it's very unstable and all this stuff doesn't add stability to the world.
And when will hopefully Americans wake up and realize the people conducting U.S. foreign policy are either incredibly stupid, incredibly evil, or some combination of the two.
And I don't know where I stand on that.
Because as you say, point out, Iran is apparently sending drones that have been very effective to Russia.
And China is not on board.
And now we have Saudi Arabia saying, no, we're not going to give you more oil.
In fact, we're going to give you less oil.
And what does the U.S. do?
We're going to have to reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
We've been sanctioning Iran, putting him in a corner for this long.
Now you might think they might start regretting this philosophy of sanctioning the rest of the world if they don't say how high when we say jump.
Now it's finally coming back to bite us.
You know, Sweden is anxious to be a full-fledged member of NATO.
And they have, at least on the surface, look like, well, we want to be a NATO and Germany's in with NATO and they have been pseudo-allies.
But now the question is, did Sweden really participate and endorse the bombing of the pipelines, which is ruining Germany?
So this goes on and I keep thinking about Sweden because I heard it so often said because as I was growing up, it was usually something audio that I would hear radio parents talking about it.
But Sweden and Switzerland, they were always independent.
They stood aside.
You know, at least that was their reputation.
But now it seems like, you know, they're right in the mess.
So, well, I wonder, you know, how are they involved in this international crisis of bombing a pipeline and challenging the whole system of Russia versus Europe?
And so, Russia sort of tested them.
You know a little bit about this.
Can you tell us exactly what you're thinking?
Get lost, pals.
And what does that do?
That really splits it all up there, you know, because they're on their way.
They're going to be an official member of NATO, and therefore that when it becomes more violent, we will be sending troops to Sweden to save Sweden from whoever is against them by that time.
So supposedly, they worry the most about Russia.
Well, you know, there's an old saying, you've probably seen it before, if only more of the countries were led by women, we would have world peace.
Well, what we're seeing is exactly the opposite being true, because you see women in prominent positions in Sweden, in Finland, and in Germany, they are young women, and they are among the most hawkish, war-mongering leaders we've ever seen.
I mean, I think even Dick Cheney's ghost is afraid of some of these ladies, and it's pretty astonishing.
But as you speak of Sweden, let's move ahead a couple, if you can, because this will give some more background on what we're talking about to the Paul Joseph Watson piece.
Sweden refuses to share results.
Sweden refuses to share results of Nord Stream pipeline explosion investigation with Russia.
And if you go to the next clip on this, this is what I'm talking about, Prime Minister Magdalena Anderson.
She said the outcome of the inquiry into what severely damaged the two pipelines would not be revealed to Moscow.
She says, in Sweden, our preliminary investigations are confidential.
And that, of course, also applies in this case.
And it just kind of makes you wonder, Dr. Paul, what do they have to hide?
Why are they afraid of making this public?
And it reminds you back of the shootdown of the MH17 plane over Ukraine a few years ago, where you can never get a decent investigation.
You would think that all parties involved would get together and have a very transparent, very open investigation into who did it.
But I guess, you know, like the game of clue, there's always someone in the deck of cards who did it, and he's not that happy with other people finding out.
That's all I can conclude.
And closely related to this is the meeting going on with NATO.
Yeah, yeah, we referenced it earlier, but yeah, absolutely.
The defense ministers there, they're in Brussels, and they would like to be seen as very serious-minded diplomats who are bringing the world closer together, that kind of stuff.
But the whole thing is, is they will release, well, there's a couple people over here, they're talking about another agreement, but the whole purpose is to spend more American taxpayers' money buying weapons that will make the world less safe and send them over at the expense of Americans because our country is getting poorer and poorer, and we're going to go over there and get involved or continue to expand it.
Nato's Misguided Mission00:05:04
And that is, are they going to get this air defense that they need against the Iranian missiles?
So it's pretty wild, makes no sense whatsoever.
And of course, we've talked about NATO before, but NATO does not serve our national security interests.
It has hindered it.
We've talked about this a while ago, and that is the very first thing NATO did right after the war, once they were established, is go in and get involved in the Korean War.
NATO is supposed to be a North American treaty to repel the Russians from invading Eastern Europe.
But anyway.
Yeah, it's, I mean, I think they're desperate now because I think after the midterms there's going to be less enthusiasm for this whole business.
I wanted to just mention one thing, Dr. Paul, and that is our chat on Rumble.
We have Rumble rants, and we've had a few people that have donated during the rants, and I'm happy to see that happen.
And in fact, we have Smedley Butler today who gave us a couple bucks.
Hey, that's great.
Said, if only we held an athletic decathlon, two teams, Ron Paul G. Edward Griffin versus Anthony Fauci and William Gates.
What would be the results?
And would the entire scam be over overnight?
So that's a good point that he makes.
And if you want to participate in that, we do appreciate it.
I'm going to think about it.
I think you can take on Bill Gates.
No problem.
No problem.
Right.
I'm going to close out with a tweet, just kind of return to our original theme.
This is something that Thomas Massey put out a couple of days ago, and I was meaning to bring it to everyone's attention, but it's pretty poignant if we can put that up.
So Thomas Massey tweets this out.
Ernest Ramirez says he was offered money from FEMA for his son's burial if he would just agree to say on paper that the cause of death was COVID instead of the COVID vax.
He refused the money.
Now he travels to tell his story so that his son's death will not be in vain.
Now, if this is accurate, this is awfully disgusting.
They tried to bribe him.
Hey, we'll help you bury your son if you just lie about what killed him.
666.
666.
You know, and when we started off, I alluded rather directly that I think this whole thing is fraud.
I think it's criminal fraud.
And it's so serious that people should be prosecuted for this if there is to be any purpose for government.
But this is all fake stuff.
It's fake.
It's lying.
And it's not even neutral.
And we pointed out so many things today where they've actually makes things worse as we go along.
And there's supposed to be the government protecting us.
If this doesn't wake people up, and if the American people don't wake up, we do have an opportunity, even though with all our shortcomings, because right now, the shortcomings have advanced so far that a high percentage of American people don't believe the elections are very fair.
And from a personal experience, I'd question the elections.
But if you do that, then of course you have put yourself in a category where they might not even let you get on the ballot.
You're a potential terrorist and all this kind of stuff.
So we have a long way yet to finding the truth, but I think more and more Americans are waking up.
They're waking up to the subject we talked about today.
They've wakened up about what's going on with COVID.
And I think they're waking up about the financial system.
But hopefully that people will see through it because the rhetoric is pretty professional.
The rhetoric is how we got here.
The lying and the scheming and scaring and intimidation.
And yet technically it's really, really fraud is what they're doing.
And if they didn't know it and they were working with good intentions and the government said, I know, I want a disclaimer here, we'll do the vaccine, but it's not the way you're supposed to do it.
None of that whatsoever.
It was a collusion between politicians who thought they could get some benefits from it.
Well, somebody else is going to make a big buck.
And here, all we find out, it didn't help.
And it wasn't neutral.
It made things worse.
And it cost a lot, and the cost is going to go on and on.
So this should be a wake-up period.
And the people who have participated and pushed all this, like I say, if they had a conscience and actually thought that there was something wrong going on here, they should start to feel a little bit of guilt about what they've done.
Costly Collusion00:00:32
But you know, they don't.
And they don't, when they institute wars, just think of the wars, the first part of this century, how many millions of people died at our hand.
How many Americans have suffered?
But the people who perpetuated this did it all in the name of protecting our Constitution, protecting our national security, going after the terrorists, and making the world a better place to live.
Well, we have to confront that because just that, what they believe, it is not true.