Watch this video in which it would appear that Pfizer official publicly admits that they did not test its C19 shot on stopping the spread.
Ms Small answered: "No".
But Ms Small answered a different question than what was asked of her. While Mr Roos carefully read a prepared question, she ambiguously read an answer from her notes which she was glancing at as she began her response.
Roos asked if, before the Pfizer shot entered the market, was it tested on stopping the transmission of the virus.
Small asked herself if, before the market, did we know about stopping immunization.
As a marketing director she expanded her "No" answer. Moving at the speed of science is an ambiguous phrase, of course. She did say that their effort was to understand what was taking place in the market. Whatever that might mean.
My impression is that she was talking about marketing issues rather than testing the efficacy of the product. And that is a different kind of damning admission whereby adjustments to marketing efforts overshadowed testing.
It would appear that she was not talking about the questions around transmission but rather around immunization. It seems she had expected a question, or had chosen to answer a question, about the negative impact on immunity. That is to say, the negative efficacy of the product.
The product was not designed to stop transmission (as a prophylactic product) because it was designed as a therapeutic product which, oddly enough, the governments marketed as a prophylactic product via the various "mandates" that promoted the Pfizer shot. Yes, Pfizer's own advertising did strongly suggest, if not claimed, that their product had a prophylactic effect but it did so under the cover of a re-definition of both vaccination and of herd immunity.
The ambiguity now provides camouflage for the product that was conceived and driven by marketing rather than by scientific measures of success against "the spread" of a pathogenic virus. This will be used to now sell a different thing: the need to have done something, however imperfectly, in response to a public health crisis.
Of course, that will rely on the re-definition of pandemic, also. And on it goes.
Note that it has become almost impossible to make head or tail of the use of terms such as vaccine, virus, pathogenic, transmission, infection, case, positive test, and on and on and on. The manipulation of the language to gut the meaning of formerly useful and significant words has now made it next to impossible to think of and to discuss essential ideas.
Science will need to clarify the terms for the sake of transparency and accountability; likewise these terms, or new terms, will be needed to be brought to bear on the legal questions of liability. The legal terms pre-exist the marketing re-definitions. You might think that would settle the matter.
But as we have seen over and over again, the text of law is pushed aside after such terms are gutted and rendered ambiguous enough to allow lawyers and judges to pretend that the laws mean not what they had meant but are so flexible as to mean anything that would suit the reader at any given moment - whether that be the defendant or the complainant or, indeed, a judge or panel of judges. Lots of cover here for the politicians and policy-makers. This is the world of the regulative state rather than the state ruled by laws made by the democratic process of responsible government.
The marketing now will always be about dodging accountability while retaining and gaining non-transparent power. The muddled language of "public health" has knocked the stuffing out of the notion of a public health crisis and the notion of preventing and treating actual maladies.
You see, this shows how it is just too complicated for the common person to understand and how out-dated the notion of informed consent has become. Let the regulative state figure all of this out for you and you just do as you are told. You are being programmed to become confused, and to remain confused, so that you will throw up your arms in exasperation and demand that the government just tell you what you need to do.
No questions. Except, how high do you want us to jump through whatever number of hoops you think is best for us ignorant "consumers".
Oops, that would mean another re-definition of citizen or free person.
This, from January 26, 2021.
Dr David E. Martin: The Moderna and Pfizer COVID Jabs Are Legally Not Vaccines
https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2021/01/26/the-moderna-and-pfizer-covid-jabs-are-legally-not-vaccines.aspx