(LifeSiteNews) – Pfizer’s CEO is facing mockery after he announced that a 4th COVID shot is “necessary” due to the injection’s waning immunity.
During an interview of CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that “most people” will need a fourth experimental COVID-19 injection, while admitting that his company’s shot does not provide long-lasting immunity against the highly survivable coronavirus.
“Right now, the protection that you’re getting from the third [shot], it is good enough — actually quite good for hospitalizations and deaths — it’s not that good against infections, but doesn’t last very long,” Bourla said, adding that “it is necessary for most” people to receive a fourth dose of Pfizer’s mRNA jab. Data has shown that jabbed people have dominated COVID hospitalizations and deaths across the world in recent months.
Bourla also revealed that his company is working on producing additional vaccines that specifically protect against the mild “omicron variant” and unlike the current product, will provide protection from the virus for “over a year.”
Immediately after Bourla’s statements were reported in the media, doctors and other public figures took to social media to mock the CEO and question his true motivation for pushing a fourth dose.
“Necessary for what?” asked Dr. Eli David, adding an emoji of a smiley face with dollar signs in its eyes to indicate Bourla is pushing a fourth shot to earn more money, and not because he is concerned about the health of the public.
Necessary for what? 🤑 pic.twitter.com/kjiLXclQ5I
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) March 13, 2022
“Soon quarterly boosters will be necessary… not so much for prevention of COVID but to boost Pfizer’s quarterly earnings,” added Donald Trump Jr.
Soon quarterly boosters will be necessary… not so much for prevention of COVID but to boost Pfizer’s quarterly earnings. https://t.co/kmRqgS6h3w
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 14, 2022
“Let’s make a deal: Since there’s no emergency, drop the EUA on your product, assume liability when someone gets injured or dies because of your product (after all, you care so much about the well-being of others), and let the fourth dose roll,” chimed in a third person, American author Garret Kramer.
Let’s make a deal: Since there’s no emergency, drop the EUA on your product, assume liability when someone gets injured or dies because of your product (after all, you care so much about the well-being of others), and let the fourth dose roll. https://t.co/RCUzyVXmdv
— Garret Kramer (@GarretKramer) March 14, 2022
As mentioned by Kramer, Pfizer has been given legal immunity by governments around the world in relation to their COVID-19 vaccines. In effect, if one has been injured or even killed by Pfizer’s novel injections, the pharmaceutical giant is immune from legal recourse.
This financial and legal immunity has caused immense skepticism among the public, not only because Bourla himself has become a billionaire since the rollout of his company’s shot and is therefore incentivized to push more doses, but also because the COVID vaccines have been linked to millions of injuries and thousands of deaths. Meanwhile, not only are the COVID vaccines being encouraged and marketed to the public, but they are also being mandated by many governments and large companies.
Pfizer’s own past conduct is also a cause of concern for many critics. In 2009, in the largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, Pfizer was forced to pay a $2.3 billion settlement “to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.”
Even the term “vaccine” to describe Pfizer’s injections has come into question. Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology has said that “gene therapy” is an accurate term for COVID jabs. Similarly, Stefan Oelrich, president of the pharmaceutical giant Bayer company’s Pharmaceutical Division, said that the novel mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing. Prominent French scientist Professor Christian Perronne, with extensive expertise in infectious diseases, also concurs and stated that “the products they call ‘vaccines’ for Covid-19 are not really vaccines” and are better described as “genetic modifiers.”
Many Americans remain concerned that the vaccines have not been sufficiently studied for negative effects given their accelerated clinical trials, and some harbor ethical reservations about the use of cells from aborted babies in their development. Still others simply consider them unnecessary given COVID-19’s high survivability among most groups, low risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicating that post-infection natural immunity is equally protective against reinfection.