In a clip that has gone viral on free speech media platforms, Dutch politician, Rob Roos, posed a direct question under oath to Janine Small, a senior executive from Pfizer. The honest and direct response was remarkable. The exchange went as follows:

Roos: Was the Pfizer covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with the committee? I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I’m looking forward to it.”

Small: Regarding the question around did we know about stopping the immunization before it entered the market? No. We had to move at the speed of science to really understand what was taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr. (Albert) Bourla (chief executive of Pfizer) would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”

Hearing such a stunning admission asserted without the typical dodging and prevarications we have come to expect from the political and influential makes it easy to miss the big picture implications behind her words. Consequently, I plan to do one of my trademark deep dive deconstructions in order to get more meat off the bone. Ultimately, the details hidden in plain sight actually pose an even graver threat.

For starters, let me address the discrepancy in terminology between the question and the response. Roos asks about transmission, but Small speaks about immunization. Did the Pfizer executive misunderstand or misspeak?

Rob Roos was very clear in his question, so the notion that Small did not grasp what he was asking did not make sense. Everyone listening to this exchange knew what was being asked of this Pfizer executive, so this means she was either a fool or was engaging in political gamesmanship. We have become accustomed to hearing politicians avoid answering the question put to them in favour of answering the question they want to answer. Either way, this was not a misunderstanding.

Secondly, Small’s reference of, “…stopping the immunization…?” is incoherent. One would have to explain what “stopping immunization” even means. This only becomes understandable once the word “immunization” is replaced by “transmission” – the very term used in the question. As a side note, I find it amusing that the Dutch politician posing a question in English is more articulate than the English-speaking Pfizer executive.

If Small was attempting to assert that they didn’t test to find out the immunological effects of the injections, then why were they put on the market. That would mean everything about their product was fraudulent. Ironically, what we have seen from the data is that the injections neither prevented spread not offered immunological protection beyond their generous claims of several months, then a matter of weeks. This has been admitted by the makers and by the regimen of regular booster shots. We have now transitioned to negative efficacy whereby the injected are more likely to catch the virus.

Since it is clear that we are talking about Pfizer not investigating transmissibility, then let’s consider the rest of Small’s remarks within that context.

Ignoring “vaccine” injury and death and focusing solely on the admission from Pfizer that they knew nothing about transmission, this tells us several things.

Off the top, any health authority, government, workplace, school, or any other representative that mandated shots under the guise of keeping others safe was guilty of spreading genuine misinformation. They coerced compliance based on what Pfizer (and doubtless all these pharmaceutical companies) knew to be a lie. Everyone stating that these jabs were necessary to stop the spread are now known to be guilty of fraud. As such, those who acted as enforcers were merely acting as agents of the state. Since this has the patina of the Nazi era excuse of “We were only following orders,” I am happy to argue why this is not just me drifting into Godwin’s law by drawing fitting comparisons with Nazi Germany. Consider the following:

• Those who resisted the jabs were accused of being disease spreaders not fit to join civil society and it became a civic duty to report those not obeying the dictates.
• The imposition of the jabs with threats of punitive measures for non-compliance violated the Nuremburg code that was created because of the medical abuses carried out under the direction of the Nazis.
• The injections have always been experimental and forcing compliance to have an untested product injected into the body violates medical ethics and aligns with the actions of medical professionals under Hitler.
• Nazi Germany succeeded because people put blind trust in authority figures to fix their circumstances. They chose scapegoats to receive blame for their condition and a propaganda campaign was used to push the lies.

For those who argue it did not get to the point of death, I remind you of those who took the injection and died or were injured because of the mandates imposed. Consider those who killed themselves because of the compulsory isolation. How about those who perished because of Covid patients being moved into nursing homes – the very population in need of protection. We also have the hospital protocols and denial of early treatments that killed large numbers as well as those denied organ transplants or medical care because of these measures. This is not even a complete list.

Every person fired, who lost their business or source of income, experienced the severing of relationships, fell behind on their schooling, missed out on church, counselling, or experienced an array of direct and indirect impacts from the fraudulent premise that the injections stopped the spread was needless and discriminatory. You were lied to either by those who were duped to fall for the lie or because they were complicit in the fraud. To top it all off, those you treated as pariahs were right all along. We didn’t go along because we hate grandma, but because we knew the facts did not match the narrative. Meanwhile, the least trustworthy and accountable people were lionized as secular saviours; being granted the presumption of integrity.

What we also know is that lofty promises of safety and efficacy were lies because there was no long-term testing for safety and efficacy for the injections. For that matter, we know the short-term efficacy was lacking – thus the rapid transition to the Pfizer loyalty booster card. Alert Canadians knew with the first rollout since PM Trudeau ordered more than enough jabs to fill the arms of every Canadian ten times over. Was he a fool, aware of the ineffectiveness, or both?

Lest you think things could not get any darker, the new Pfizer bivalent booster was tested on 8 mice and this alone was grounds for the CDC throwing caution to the wind and insisting it be given to the general public – including children – in a mass campaign. Incidentally, the test was a failure. Tell me again what the job description is for the CDC? This is the essence of what Janine Small relies upon as Pfizer’s two-legged stool of safety and efficacy inherent in her commitment to moving at the speed of science.

• There is no proven safety or efficacy because those coerced to take the jabs are the test subjects
• The rush is based on the premise that there is a crisis to be met and there is no time to waste on testing for safety or efficacy

If Pfizer couldn’t take the time to figure out transmission when there was at least an initial overture of human trials; they certainly have no data on transmission when they close up the testing lab after injecting a handful of rodents. This brings us to an array of questions that anyone not suffering from mass formation ought to be asking:

• What crisis exists to require these injections?
• Does this urgency override the necessity of ensuring the product works and doesn’t kill people?
• How are they taking into account natural immunity which they’ve been forced to admit is the most robust and long-lasting protection available?
• What is the qualitative difference to make these injections necessary given the track record of the highly touted original recipe?
• What possible reason might the CDC and various political and health leaders have to rely solely on mouse testing as an acceptable acid test to demand human uptake?

Sorry, but I can’t let the last question go without venturing what I deem the only reasonable explanation. I maintain that this tyranny-minded brain trust is looking to ensure plausible deniability when the fallout becomes undeniable. It’s a case of one brain washing the other as the co-captains on this Titanic are about to go down. Here is why I believe this to be true.

Pfizer and the CDC fought valiantly to keep the Pfizer data from public purview for 75 years. By then, those not dead from the injections or the implementation of WEF’s Agenda 2030 will have passed due to old age. While they have done yeoman’s work to censor the findings and keep “suspicious” deaths on the QT, the fact that the data has been released and that growing numbers of people will want answers to why friends and family members are dying from SADS. While this data is damning, I can see the Holocaust from Pfizer 2.0 evoking protestations of: “How were we to know. This was only tested on mice.” Meanwhile, Ms. Small could be rolled out again to say that they also couldn’t know because they were again moving at the speed of science where they can’t possibly predict casualties.

Imagine you saw an apartment building suddenly collapsed in front of you, killing and injuring large numbers of your family, friends and neighbours. There is a court case over the incident and it is revealed that the 30-story high-rise was erected in 9 months based on an identified severe housing shortage. The rush is based on claims that failing to provide living quarters could result in massive deaths in the event of harsh weather conditions – say, due to “climate change”.

The builders and contractors maintain there was no opportunity to put the structure through the usual rigorous safety checks. Instead, they allowed several pets to occupy the apartments for a few weeks to determine if all was up to specs. Based on this alone, the building inspectors signed off on the project. The government not only gave approval, but mandated that all the homeless needed to move in right away or they would be taken to jail for non-compliance.

Those who lost loved ones insist that this was outrageous and reckless from all involved in this debacle. They demand accountability from those who pushed ahead with this project. Media sources insist that far more lives would have been lost if the skyscraper had not been built. Blame for the collapse is placed on those with friends and family inside because, if they too moved into the building, it would have created the balance necessary to keep the edifice from crumpling.

In a moment of candor, a head of the building project admits that they never really checked for structural integrity as they were committed to creating living spaces. They shrug off these shortcuts by insisting they were simply moving at the speed of occupancy.

This perfectly illustrates what we are looking at with the development and implementation of these injections and mandates. The health agencies and governments will say they trusted the CDC. The CDC will claim they were rushing to meet a public health crisis at the behest of the government. Big pharma will hold out their contract that protects them from liability because of their earnest effort to protect the extinction level event of omicron and the flu. The government will absolve all parties from responsibility because they meant well and were acting in the public interest.

This also brings us full circle back to my article on the intentional suppression of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and other prophylactics. In that situation, the CDC, health agencies and governments had plenty of time to put out hit pieces and block doctors and patients from accessing these proven safe and effective drugs, but they were too busy moving at the speed of science to check whether these new products that would cure, kill, or even prevent transmission while mandating compliance with this “vaccine” regimen.

One final point must not be ignored. I bring you back to Small’s response:

We had to move at the speed of science to really understand what was taking place in the market. And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr. (Albert) Bourla (chief executive of Pfizer) would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”

Flash quiz: What important detail is not mentioned in this cost-benefit analysis?

Answer: The impact on the recipients of the jab.

I’m actually appalled that I have heard no one mention the fact that this Pfizer exec was justifying their actions based on two considerations – the market, and their company.

What she is saying, in essence, was not that Pfizer was meeting a human need, but a market-driven course of action. Money was being thrown at “vaccine” development through Operation Warp speed and Pfizer wanted to make sure that they didn’t miss out on this tax-imbued largesse. They were scratching an itch that was not informed by public need or safety, but prodded by market forces.

The inconvenient truth is that they were perverting science in an attempt to move at the speed of corruption – and that is no easy task.