Just in case those of you worried that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla may be subject to risks of heart disease, neurological damage, ADE, etc. if he takes the shot, there's no need to worry anymore!
Fact-checkers are stating this is false and a misrepresentation, stating that this quote, which is from December, was Bourla stating in context that he was not the highest priority to receive the then-new vaccines.
This doesn't change any of my opinions about the vaccine or the company responsible for it, but I don't want your channel to be painted with the misinformation brush.
Let's examine what "fact checkers" attempt to check. "My health type is to recommend not to get vaccinated" is not at all identical to "The vaccine is in short supply, and others need it more urgently, so I'll get mine later." If a person's videotaped statement must be labeled as false because it lacks greater context, then perhaps fact checkers' chosen narrative does not stand well on its own merits.
In principle, I agree with your statement- but what, exactly, are you asserting Bourla meant by his statement? That he doesn't need the vaccine at all, and is choosing to "opt out" even though the rest of us cannot?
Do you believe he wasn't subsequently vaccinated, as has also been pointed out?
I read all 3 of your links and just saw the longer video from which the shorter clip was taken. In it, Bourla said that not only he, but all Pfizer executives would not "cut the line" to take the vaccine early on. To this day, Pfizer and Moderna employees are not required to take the vaccine, as Biden has required of other large companies.
Also, there may be some faith that Bourla actually took the vaccine in March. I for one will not attest to the content of that syringe, if it was even uncapped like those of other celebrities.
It's a perfect analogy, and besides that, I admire its place in your practice. My chiropractor is the same.
I didn't intend to imply he was being gracious or genuine; I think he a psychopath.
I was trying to get at the context of what he said. In light of everything that's been discussed here, I think the more interesting issue is whether the entire issue of his vaccination is a scam.
Thank you. I also love reading Colleen Huber's Substack and am glad you pointed this out. Of course, the even larger context is that he admitted COVID is not an equal opportunity "killer" and that the vaccine is infinitely more useful for some than others (of course that's also making a great man assumptions about its effectiveness), which leads to the obvious conclusion that this should be a personal choice. If you feel you are healthy enough, you don't need it.
I don't like when the supercilious frenzy of attempting to find the slightest flaw, crack, misstep, or inconsistency in an exhaustingly long debate is used as an obviously poor-faith attempt to completely defeat a reasoned position. I don't want that to happen here.
It should be the choice of ALL people whether or not to take it. No matter what he said into a camera, this man and his company are 100% complicit in taking that choice away from every single free man and woman, and don't care about the deaths on top of the tyranny. I hope they all face some kind of justice- probably limited to the cosmic- and suffer greatly for what they've done to help break western civilization, possibly irrevocably.
So, your point is "fact checkers" with well known histories of misinformation don't like undermining unnecessary vaxes? If so, you're correct. If you think the phizer ceo saying he doesn't need the vax meant he really did need the vax, time has proven he was correct then, and still is now. Competent people don't need self appointed gaurdians of the truth to tell them what was meant. Sadly, others do.
Are you saying Bourla didn't ultimately get the vax, and that he didn't mean he simply wasn't the highest priority during the initial rollout?
Taken out of context, the sentence fragment in the headline is misrepresenting the event. This is true whether you like Pfizer, vaccine mandates, or anything else. "Fact checker" organizations are leftist scumbag propaganda managers. That doesn't make it true that Bourla said he's never getting the vaccine (and hasn't been vaccinated in the 10 months since that statement).
It's not good to use bad information to support your argument, even when your argument is right.
Are you really going to come at me on this? I'm curious what side you think I'm on.
I don't care about sides. Just the facts. Context is irrelevant. He said he didn't want the vax. End of story. If he changed his mind later, that's up to him. He's fortunate he knows he doesn't need it. Most don't need it but don't know.
David Watson: "I don't care about sides. Just the facts."
Also David Watson, immediately afterward: "Context is irrelevant."
Taking a fragment of a larger statement and extrapolating meaning not meant by the speaker is in service of "facts"?
That's a dangerous road to go down. He didn't say he "didn't want the vax." He said it wasn't "recommended" for his demographic AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST AVAILABLE. Nor did he "change his mind"- he was vaccinated later as most people in areas with tiered vaccine availability were. There's no indication in this video or other statement that he didn't intend to receive the shot at any point. These details DO matter, and the truth of the situation is separate from whether we believe the shots are good or bad.
Irrelevant details are important to a few. But they don't matter. This is not about the vax, it's about involuntary vax. He wasn't a volunteer. Most people don't need to.
Easier not to need to if you have a few million in the bank and you're the boss. A lot harder if you've got $2 left until payday and the boss is demanding that you get one.
You won't find a rich man sleeping under a bridge or waiting in the queue for a jab of Pfizer.
A lot of politicians have capped needle photos. The Queensland Premier's is a classic as it was noticed by the journalists (who seem amazing blind to others). The excuse offered was that Palaszczuk had done the real jab a few minutes earlier but no-one had got the photos.
Also Netanyahu signed Israel up on $60 a shot instead of the $20 a shot a lot of others got. And Israel has an agreement with Pfizer which basically means they give each other info on their experiment (on Israeli citizens).
He doesn’t even mention COVID. This is as bad as Veritas posting that stupid video of some gay guy saying he wants to shoot darts into blacks. This does NOTHING to help your credibility.
It's interesting, Tom, that you allege that Bourla likely got covid shots. I cannot open the Twitter link that you sent, and after looking at the first two pages of Google results for "Pfizer CEO got covid vaccine video," none of the major news agencies nor any of the major broadcasters that I see show video of this important event. Yet you seem to think it happened, and you imply that the needle was uncapped, and that the syringe was full, and that it contained the alleged substance.
I do see widely reported acknowledgement however that Bourla cancelled a planned trip to Israel in March because he had not yet been vaccinated. It seems odd to deny oneself a mere milliliter of a desired medicine after many thousands of Americans had already been dosed, many millions more had access to the vaccine, and using that as a reason to cancel a planned trip abroad. Don't you think?
It's long, so do a word-find on "59 years" and you'll be taken straight to the key passage, which I have copied below. I capitalized the critical sentence for emphasis. There's no love lost between me and often-lying "fact-checkers," but they're not wrong about what Bourla said. Unfortunately, about the quote, Colleen is.
Of course it could be that Bourla is doing a deep fake and hasn't (and won't) take the "vaccine," but the premise of Colleen's post is that he admitted it. In the supposedly damning interview, he did not do that, and it's not arguable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
(MEG) TIRRELL: Well, and a question for you. I’ve heard you have not yet had your shot. When do you plan to get it?
BOURLA: As soon as I can, I will. The only sensitivity here, Meg, is that I don’t want to have an example that I’m cutting the line. I’m 59 years old in good health, I’m not working in the front line. AND SO, MY TYPE IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO GET THE VACCINATION NOW. So that’s one consideration. On the other hand, our company ran a lot of polls to see what would take people to believe it. And one of the highest ranking – even higher than if Joe Biden takes it, even higher than if the other presidents take it, is if the CEO of the company takes it. So with that in mind, I’m trying to find a way that I will get vaccinated despite if it is not my time just to demonstrate the confidence of the company. But we have made the decision that if we have to do that, we will not do it with our executives. So none of the executives and board members will cut the line. They will take it as their age and occupation type is the time for them to take it.
Although I appreciate your finding the larger context of the quote, even the expanded statement is so obviously laughable, that if I tried that line of nonsense with my patients, they would smell it for being the putrid wimp's way out that it is. My clinic has an equipoise policy; I don't give any treatment that I have not already had myself - scarce or not. There at the source of manufacture, there is no shortage of fulminant clotshot production. To imply scarcity and a gracious deferral to not cut the line, he may have convinced some, but then that grainy March 2021 photo of a capped needle pointed toward him from over a foot away only added to the impression of ongoing theater.
To be fair, that guy WAS employed by the FDA, and said utterly scumbag piece of shit things, and shouldn't have a job deciding what happens to my body.
I don’t know. We don’t need speculation at this point if we are to have credibility. To put it in this context, if all we had was that clip to use to prove a point in court, our case would be thrown out.
I know nothing of that, but my answer would be no. Do you have reputable news sources stating that they won’t show it? Or is it just because you don’t see it everywhere that you guess they are suppressing it? It’s interesting how we will grasp at anything to make it fit our narrative. We’ll even accept known lies if it fits what we want to believe.
I would agree. But I do think this excerpt is being presented in a manner that misrepresents the statement being made.
To be clear, in light of your earlier statements in this thread, are you stating you believe Bourla faked or falsified evidence of receiving the vaccine at a later date? And that he never actually had any intention of getting it himself?
Is it in this light that you're presenting his statement from December?
Gotta agree with this. His point is that when they were rationing he was waiting in line like everyone else - they made a big deal that both he and his wife charitably waited.
And oh I have to agree that the PV thing was bad form.
Fact-checkers are stating this is false and a misrepresentation, stating that this quote, which is from December, was Bourla stating in context that he was not the highest priority to receive the then-new vaccines.
https://fullfact.org/online/pfizer-ceo-didnt-say-he-doesnt-need-to-be-vaccinated-because-hes-healthy/
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-pfizer-ceo-got-the-covid-19-vaccine/
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/pfizer-ceo-albert-bourla-was-vaccinated-against-covid-19-in-march/
This doesn't change any of my opinions about the vaccine or the company responsible for it, but I don't want your channel to be painted with the misinformation brush.
Let's examine what "fact checkers" attempt to check. "My health type is to recommend not to get vaccinated" is not at all identical to "The vaccine is in short supply, and others need it more urgently, so I'll get mine later." If a person's videotaped statement must be labeled as false because it lacks greater context, then perhaps fact checkers' chosen narrative does not stand well on its own merits.
I never take what the "Fact Checkers™" say seriously, anyway. Most of them are funded by Big Pharma anyway, I'm sure.
Even if he did take the jab, it can be faked. Check this out:
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/municipal-health-secretary-of-brazil-faking-the-vaccine-jab_Tm6TLHRmattlgzI.html
In principle, I agree with your statement- but what, exactly, are you asserting Bourla meant by his statement? That he doesn't need the vaccine at all, and is choosing to "opt out" even though the rest of us cannot?
Do you believe he wasn't subsequently vaccinated, as has also been pointed out?
I read all 3 of your links and just saw the longer video from which the shorter clip was taken. In it, Bourla said that not only he, but all Pfizer executives would not "cut the line" to take the vaccine early on. To this day, Pfizer and Moderna employees are not required to take the vaccine, as Biden has required of other large companies.
Also, there may be some faith that Bourla actually took the vaccine in March. I for one will not attest to the content of that syringe, if it was even uncapped like those of other celebrities.
At my clinic, I don't dispense any nutrients or herbs at all, until I've had at least one dose myself. Does that make me selfish?
Bourla steps to the back of the line: 'No but I insist, after you.'
With regard to this rushed and risky genetic experiment, does that make him gracious?
Just asking.
It's a perfect analogy, and besides that, I admire its place in your practice. My chiropractor is the same.
I didn't intend to imply he was being gracious or genuine; I think he a psychopath.
I was trying to get at the context of what he said. In light of everything that's been discussed here, I think the more interesting issue is whether the entire issue of his vaccination is a scam.
"does that make him gracious?"
Patently pathologically deceptive perhaps, but gracious ugh no.
>> To this day, Pfizer and Moderna employees are not required to take the vaccine, as Biden has required of other large companies.
Holy crap. I didn't know this.
Thank you. I also love reading Colleen Huber's Substack and am glad you pointed this out. Of course, the even larger context is that he admitted COVID is not an equal opportunity "killer" and that the vaccine is infinitely more useful for some than others (of course that's also making a great man assumptions about its effectiveness), which leads to the obvious conclusion that this should be a personal choice. If you feel you are healthy enough, you don't need it.
I don't like when the supercilious frenzy of attempting to find the slightest flaw, crack, misstep, or inconsistency in an exhaustingly long debate is used as an obviously poor-faith attempt to completely defeat a reasoned position. I don't want that to happen here.
It should be the choice of ALL people whether or not to take it. No matter what he said into a camera, this man and his company are 100% complicit in taking that choice away from every single free man and woman, and don't care about the deaths on top of the tyranny. I hope they all face some kind of justice- probably limited to the cosmic- and suffer greatly for what they've done to help break western civilization, possibly irrevocably.
So, your point is "fact checkers" with well known histories of misinformation don't like undermining unnecessary vaxes? If so, you're correct. If you think the phizer ceo saying he doesn't need the vax meant he really did need the vax, time has proven he was correct then, and still is now. Competent people don't need self appointed gaurdians of the truth to tell them what was meant. Sadly, others do.
Are you saying Bourla didn't ultimately get the vax, and that he didn't mean he simply wasn't the highest priority during the initial rollout?
Taken out of context, the sentence fragment in the headline is misrepresenting the event. This is true whether you like Pfizer, vaccine mandates, or anything else. "Fact checker" organizations are leftist scumbag propaganda managers. That doesn't make it true that Bourla said he's never getting the vaccine (and hasn't been vaccinated in the 10 months since that statement).
It's not good to use bad information to support your argument, even when your argument is right.
Are you really going to come at me on this? I'm curious what side you think I'm on.
I don't care about sides. Just the facts. Context is irrelevant. He said he didn't want the vax. End of story. If he changed his mind later, that's up to him. He's fortunate he knows he doesn't need it. Most don't need it but don't know.
David Watson: "I don't care about sides. Just the facts."
Also David Watson, immediately afterward: "Context is irrelevant."
Taking a fragment of a larger statement and extrapolating meaning not meant by the speaker is in service of "facts"?
That's a dangerous road to go down. He didn't say he "didn't want the vax." He said it wasn't "recommended" for his demographic AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST AVAILABLE. Nor did he "change his mind"- he was vaccinated later as most people in areas with tiered vaccine availability were. There's no indication in this video or other statement that he didn't intend to receive the shot at any point. These details DO matter, and the truth of the situation is separate from whether we believe the shots are good or bad.
Irrelevant details are important to a few. But they don't matter. This is not about the vax, it's about involuntary vax. He wasn't a volunteer. Most people don't need to.
Easier not to need to if you have a few million in the bank and you're the boss. A lot harder if you've got $2 left until payday and the boss is demanding that you get one.
You won't find a rich man sleeping under a bridge or waiting in the queue for a jab of Pfizer.
A lot of politicians have capped needle photos. The Queensland Premier's is a classic as it was noticed by the journalists (who seem amazing blind to others). The excuse offered was that Palaszczuk had done the real jab a few minutes earlier but no-one had got the photos.
Also Netanyahu signed Israel up on $60 a shot instead of the $20 a shot a lot of others got. And Israel has an agreement with Pfizer which basically means they give each other info on their experiment (on Israeli citizens).
He doesn’t even mention COVID. This is as bad as Veritas posting that stupid video of some gay guy saying he wants to shoot darts into blacks. This does NOTHING to help your credibility.
Here is another discussion of the credibility topic, just received:
"He has since said he's received both shots, apparently with photographic evidence:
https://twitter.com/AlbertBourla/status/1369734954498818052
"I hope you can prove I'm wrong, because this is a significant error on your part if I'm right and a slam-dunk serious hit to your credibility.
"If you are wrong, please admit it, and quickly."
Best,
Tom
And my response:
It's interesting, Tom, that you allege that Bourla likely got covid shots. I cannot open the Twitter link that you sent, and after looking at the first two pages of Google results for "Pfizer CEO got covid vaccine video," none of the major news agencies nor any of the major broadcasters that I see show video of this important event. Yet you seem to think it happened, and you imply that the needle was uncapped, and that the syringe was full, and that it contained the alleged substance.
I do see widely reported acknowledgement however that Bourla cancelled a planned trip to Israel in March because he had not yet been vaccinated. It seems odd to deny oneself a mere milliliter of a desired medicine after many thousands of Americans had already been dosed, many millions more had access to the vaccine, and using that as a reason to cancel a planned trip abroad. Don't you think?
Back in the day I had time to vet falsehoods more quickly. I don't have that luxury now, but I finally found the related CNBC transcript:
https://www.cnbc.com /2020/12/14/cnbc-transcript-pfizer-chairman-and-ceo-albert-bourla-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today.html
It's long, so do a word-find on "59 years" and you'll be taken straight to the key passage, which I have copied below. I capitalized the critical sentence for emphasis. There's no love lost between me and often-lying "fact-checkers," but they're not wrong about what Bourla said. Unfortunately, about the quote, Colleen is.
Of course it could be that Bourla is doing a deep fake and hasn't (and won't) take the "vaccine," but the premise of Colleen's post is that he admitted it. In the supposedly damning interview, he did not do that, and it's not arguable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
(MEG) TIRRELL: Well, and a question for you. I’ve heard you have not yet had your shot. When do you plan to get it?
BOURLA: As soon as I can, I will. The only sensitivity here, Meg, is that I don’t want to have an example that I’m cutting the line. I’m 59 years old in good health, I’m not working in the front line. AND SO, MY TYPE IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO GET THE VACCINATION NOW. So that’s one consideration. On the other hand, our company ran a lot of polls to see what would take people to believe it. And one of the highest ranking – even higher than if Joe Biden takes it, even higher than if the other presidents take it, is if the CEO of the company takes it. So with that in mind, I’m trying to find a way that I will get vaccinated despite if it is not my time just to demonstrate the confidence of the company. But we have made the decision that if we have to do that, we will not do it with our executives. So none of the executives and board members will cut the line. They will take it as their age and occupation type is the time for them to take it.
Although I appreciate your finding the larger context of the quote, even the expanded statement is so obviously laughable, that if I tried that line of nonsense with my patients, they would smell it for being the putrid wimp's way out that it is. My clinic has an equipoise policy; I don't give any treatment that I have not already had myself - scarce or not. There at the source of manufacture, there is no shortage of fulminant clotshot production. To imply scarcity and a gracious deferral to not cut the line, he may have convinced some, but then that grainy March 2021 photo of a capped needle pointed toward him from over a foot away only added to the impression of ongoing theater.
Reports in Jerusalem Post and elsewhere (apparently I havn't checked) that he wasn't allowed into Israel due to his vaccine status.
https://welovetrump.com/2021/08/05/hypocrisy-on-display-pfizer-c-e-o-not-fully-vaccinated/
To be fair, that guy WAS employed by the FDA, and said utterly scumbag piece of shit things, and shouldn't have a job deciding what happens to my body.
True that he doesn't mention covid. Does this imply to you that for all we know, he may have been referring to the shingles shot?
I don’t know. We don’t need speculation at this point if we are to have credibility. To put it in this context, if all we had was that clip to use to prove a point in court, our case would be thrown out.
You're right, I suspect, about that clip's inadequacy in court. Does that mean it should be censored or suppressed?
I know nothing of that, but my answer would be no. Do you have reputable news sources stating that they won’t show it? Or is it just because you don’t see it everywhere that you guess they are suppressing it? It’s interesting how we will grasp at anything to make it fit our narrative. We’ll even accept known lies if it fits what we want to believe.
I am saying that you as well as "fact checkers" seem to want it not to be seen, because of alleged risk to credibility.
*To not want it to be seen.
Is it being censored or suppressed?
No, nor should it be, imo.
I would agree. But I do think this excerpt is being presented in a manner that misrepresents the statement being made.
To be clear, in light of your earlier statements in this thread, are you stating you believe Bourla faked or falsified evidence of receiving the vaccine at a later date? And that he never actually had any intention of getting it himself?
Is it in this light that you're presenting his statement from December?
Gotta agree with this. His point is that when they were rationing he was waiting in line like everyone else - they made a big deal that both he and his wife charitably waited.
And oh I have to agree that the PV thing was bad form.
I was seaching for this a couple of days ago.
Thanks!
WOW!!!!! They are being exposed!!!! Thanks for sharing!!!!! 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻