Batches for thee, but not for me

Anther whistley-blowey piece in the puzzle of 'batch variability'

There's been another internal email leak from a Pfizer ‘whistleblower’ to top off the testimony from Pfizer reps to Senator Malcolm Roberts at a recent Senate hearing in Australia. I tend to be more persuaded by the latter, but confirmations are always valuable. Click on the photo below to hear the Pfizer reps admit to this, and interestingly, what they say is almost verbatim what is written in the ‘internal email’.

Pfizer undertook to import a batch of vaccines specifically for the employee vaccination program. Theroux and Hewitt - Pfizer reps. (Forgive me if the names are mis-spelled.)

Here’s a screenshot of the ‘Whistleblower’ email.

Source: https://slaynews.com/news/pfizer-whistleblower-leaks-email-separate-covid-shots-employees/.

The vaccine doses to be used for this program are separate and distinct from those committed by Pfizer to governments around the world and will not impact supply to national governments in any way. Pfizer ‘Whistleblower’

Well, that’s a relief. At least us employees in the ‘program’ won’t be diggin’ into the other government-mandated doses. Phew.

What exactly do they mean by separate and distinct? Separate, I can understand. Don’t want to take someone else’s precious shot - you know, favoritism is not allowed in government. But distinct? Huh? How are they distinct? Exactly? Exactly.

Let's repeat this really clearly.

Separate shots for 'employees'. This necessarily means one of two things: that there were batches that were less harmful than others, or that there were known placebo batches (saline injections - and I mean, true saline injections that would be harmless).

If the former is true, that there is known variation between batches (whatever this means), then the batches were designed this way. If THIS is true, then we have intent on our hands. I still have trouble imagining that they would be capable of varying at will or by demand in a way that would ever be predictably variably harmful. I mean, it seems to me that the manufacturing practices themselves were simply ridiculous in their bug-duggery (think DNA:RNA hybrids/contamination), so if we accept this as reality, how can we accept that they tailored batches to be variably harmful? Perhaps only some of them had the SV40 built into their plasmids for modified mRNA production? I don’t know.

Craig Pardekooper has been devout about batches having variable harms, and I have been writing about this for years now to try to understand the mechanisms by which this might be possible. And of course, there is the excellent study published by Schmeling et al. that reinforces that different batches are more highly-associated with serious adverse events, but still. How?

Could it be the people who make the difference? Genetic variations in ACE-2 receptors? Again, I don’t know for sure.

In any case, I believe that these 'reserved batches' for the Aussie employees were likely saline injections. As in, true saline injections.

After years of many of us trying to crack this egg, please pass on the gravity of this potential reality to whomever is interested in listening.

If there is variable toxicity in these batches of COVID-19 shots, this would also provide an explanation for the variability in AE and SAE presentations. It is very likely however, that other factors are at play. I want to stress this. Variability in harms also comes down to differences in the actual people injected, and most importantly, not only what they were injected with, but how, and if, the contents of the syringe were ‘cloudy’ or ‘clumpy’ or ‘degraded’ or etc...