Really Bourla? This is worse than what Walensky said...

Send in... the clowns. Those laughy daffy clowns... except Fauci. He's AWOL.

Recently, our esteemed leader in all things CNN, Rochelle Walensky has been quoted as saying this:

“I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be hopeful, so many of us wanted to say, okay, this is our ticket out, right, now we’re done. So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way. I really do. I think all of us wanted this to be done.

“Nobody said waning, when you know, oh this vaccine’s going to work. Oh well, maybe it’ll work — (laughs) it’ll wear off.

“Nobody said what if the next variant doesn’t, it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant.” - Rochelle Walensky

Hehe. Nervous laughter. Maybe it’ll work. It’ll wear off? Why are you referring to an information feed from CNN? That’s a whole lot for a psychosocial analyst to unpack! Let alone the body language experts! For another day.

Awwlllllllrighty then.

More recently, Abort - I mean Albert - Bourla topped Walensky’s incongruent ramblings (my opinion). He publicly said the following. You can listen to him try to convince the public that he tried to convince the manufacturers to act ‘otherwise’.¹

“It was counterintuitive because Pfizer was mastering or let's say we had very good experience and expertise with multiple technologies that could give a vaccine…mRNA was the technology that we had less experience with, only two years working on this. And actually, MRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day. Not vaccine, not any other medicine, so it was very counterintuitive.”- Albert Bourla

Reeeeeeeee-heeeeeeeee-hhheeeeeeeeeee——heeeellllllyyyyyyy.

I see. Maybe Dr. Richard Malone has something to say about this. I recently saw a ‘tweet’ quote. I thought that was funny.

Just to be clear, the fact that this technology is brand new technology never before applied at such a grand scale, or in the context of a viral pathogen (using mRNA to encode binding/entry surface protein), is one of main reasons that I have been using to sound alarm bells concerning safety. Having skipped right over the conventional timeline always required to properly test a biological for both safety and efficacy (up until this COVID-19 charade anyway), employing the rather questionable ‘accelerated timeline’ that brought this stuff into the arms and bodies of over 3 billion people in less than 2 years (all trials combined), I think it’s ‘safe’ to say now that none of us who still adhere to proper safety and efficacy protocols (the ones remaining who are of the mindset that Good Laboratory Practices matter) are NOT at all surprised that the safety profile of these products is not only lacking, but ABHORRENT.

75 years to release 200,000 pages of safety and efficacy data? And now what do we get instead because a judge ordered it? 10,000 pages a month? What the hell even is that? This is simply teaching future corrupt institutions and corporate entities that they can literally get away with murder. They even show us how.

Oh, and where’s Fauci?

1. Washington Post Live. Albert Bourla on why mRNA technology was "counterintuitive" in producing an effective vaccine. March 11, 2022 | 12:25 AM IST.