Pfizer in front of the Australian Senate: An Embarrassing Example of Questions Dodged by Drug Company Representatives
Australian Senate members questioned the local executives of Pfizer and Moderna last week but got no straight answers. Pfizer cannot even say what causes heart disease in their Covid vaccine.
"Does Pfizer understand why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis? If not, how can it guarantee that it is not also injuring other organs? Can you explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis and pericarditis?" These were the questions posed by Australian Senator Gerard Rennick last Thursday to the local representatives of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, who were invited to answer questions before the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It has long been recognised that mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis and pericarditis. However, as Rennick points out, these were not originally recognised adverse effects. It has been reiterated that this serious vaccine side effect is rare and the resulting inflammation mild.
How, however, can such a straightforward question be answered before a parliamentary committee? If its reasons are known, why wouldn’t they be explained? If they’re not known, then why not repent and promise to investigate it?
But Dr Krishan Thiru, Medical Director of Pfizer's Australian arm, who attended the hearing via video link, chose a different answer. "Based on our clinical trials and pharmacovigilance data as well as real-world evidence following the distribution now of billions of doses of vaccine, we retain strong confidence in the safety profile of the vaccine," he said.
In response to Senator Rennick's protest that he had a specific question about whether they could explain why such an adverse reaction occurs, Thiru replied that "Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of myocarditis and pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with vaccination". "According to public health experts and regulatory authorities around the globe, the number of reports of myocarditis remains small," Thiru noted, adding, after a further Rennick protest, that all medicines, including vaccines, have both benefits and side effects.
Thiru continued: "Looking at the totality of the evidence for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine, regulatory authorities, health authorities and experts globally, including in Australia within the department of health and the TGA, have maintained that the benefit-risk ratio..."
Senator Rennick: "That's not the question I asked. I asked whether you can explain why the vaccine causes myocarditis. Yes or no?"
Thiru's response: "The benefit-risk profile..."
Senator Rennick: "Yes or no. You clearly don't understand the pathway, do you, because you can't explain it? I'm not referring to the cost-benefit analysis here. I'm referring to whether you understand the biochemical pathway as to why the vaccine causes damage to the heart."
Rennick was unable to get an answer to his question from Pfizer representatives at that hearing.
Impossible to get straight answers
In essence, what was witnessed was the impossibility for a senator to get a clear answer from a business representative, as the latter deliberately tries to avoid the question and talks in slogans about something that suits him and his company. The embarrassing situation, where senators ask questions but have to ask their questions several times without getting any clear answers, was typical of the entire session.
"Did Pfizer test whether your COVID-19 vaccine could stop or reduce the transmission of the virus before its approval and rollout in late 2020?" another senator, Matt Canavan, asked the company representatives. Again, this is a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
But Pfizer's local leaders gave neither of the answers. "To bring this vaccine to patients, we were required to show that the vaccine was safe and effective in preventing illness, in preventing severe disease and in preventing hospitalisations. The primary purpose of vaccination was, and remains, to protect the person who received the vaccine," Thiru replied.
Understandably, Canavan was not satisfied with this answer. He pointed out that on December 3, 2020, the head of Pfizer Albert Bourla told NBC News that he did not know whether or not vaccinated people could carry and spread the virus. "I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now," Bourla said at the time.
Canavan, therefore, repeated his question in different wording, "Was Mr Bourla correct that, as of December 3, 2020, Pfizer did not know whether the vaccine could stop or reduce the spread of the virus?"
"Senator, as with all vaccines seeking regulatory authorisation, the requirement is to demonstrate in robust clinical programs that the vaccine is safe and effective in preventing the infection and, in this case, preventing severe disease and hospitalisation," Thiru replied.
What is noteworthy in the Pfizer spokesperson's responses is the direction in which the case is being pushed. While conceding that prevention and avoidance of infection might well be the desired effect of a vaccine, Thiru tries to emphasise that avoiding severe disease and hospitalisation are even more important. However, in the context of the restrictions, it was argued that limiting the spread of the virus was important since the data clearly showed that the disease was of risk only to a small part of the population – the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities. So if the vaccine did not prevent infection and the spread of the virus, it is absolutely impossible to justify, for example, the deprivation of unvaccinated young people, or even children of their rights – sacking them from their jobs, banning them from entering the cafés and removing them from social life altogether – all on the grounds that unvaccinated people were more dangerous than others, or that the policy somehow limited the spread of the virus.
The head of Pfizer claimed that the vaccine would stop the spread of the virus – on what basis did he make the claim?
Canavan's questioning continued with specific references to how Pfizer had announced on its official Twitter account in early 2021 that "the ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission is our highest priority". Could it be more clearly stated that the vaccine protects against infection and the spread of the virus?
Canavan also pointed out that in June 2021, the head of Pfizer, Bourla, posted a statement on Twitter about the importance of vaccines in stopping the spread of the virus. Bourla's post at the time justified the need to vaccinate children. "Although data shows that severe #COVID19 is rare in children, widespread vaccination is a critical tool to help stop transmission. That’s why I’m excited we have begun dosing participants aged 5 to 11 in a global Phase 2/3 study of the Pfizer-BioNTech #COVID19 vaccine," he wrote.
"What evidence did Mr Bourla have by that stage, June 8, 2021, that vaccination could stop transmission?" Senator Canavan asked.
Thiru's reply: "Senator, it has been very clearly demonstrated that the robust efficacy of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has been a centrally important tool in enabling societies to open up international borders, to reduce..."
Senator Canavan: "I'm asking for the evidence. What is the evidence? Can you point me to a study that an independent scientist has done to give grounds for Mr Bourla's statement that your vaccine stopped transmission?"
Thiru's reply, "Senator, I'm not familiar with the context of that statement. We've complied and worked very closely with the regulatory agencies around the world to probe the evidence that they required to approve this vaccine to prevent infection and severe disease and hospitalisations."
Pfizer: vaccine is good, but only against the original virus strain
Canavan also asked about Pfizer's current position – do they still think their vaccine is a critical tool to help stop the transmission?
Again, Thiru did not provide a substantive answer: "Pfizer's view is that the vaccine is a critical tool in protecting the health of individuals who are vaccinated and enabling society to operate normally as it is at the moment." This excerpt from the hearing can be viewed e.g. here.
Senator Rennick noted that Pfizer's representative seemed to acknowledge at the hearing that the vaccine was intended to prevent infection. He added that this result was not achieved. By September 2022, there were 10 million cases of Covid in Australia despite 95% of adults being vaccinated. According to Thiru, vaccinated people were infected because the virus had changed – with new strains of the virus, the vaccine became less effective.
Rennick then pointed out that this is one of Pfizer's big mistakes – they designed a vaccine that does not work with other virus strains.
Pfizer spokesman Thiru's response: “Senator, I categorically reject your statement. The vaccine was carefully designed against the virus that was prevalent at the time, which was the original wild-type virus. It remained highly effective against preventing illness and preventing severe disease."
So, did the Senator's claim actually get rejected?
Pfizer spokesman: no one forced vaccination
Rennick pointed out that despite double or even triple vaccinations, almost 50% of the population in Australia was infected, in other words, people were forced to take a vaccine that was clearly not effective in preventing infection.
Comment by Dr. Brian Hewitt, Head of Regulatory Sciences of Pfizer Australia, who was also present at the session, was even more bizarre. "I actually reject your statement that people were forced to take the vaccine," he said. There's even a slight chuckle at this assertion in the broadcast video of the hearing.
Indeed, Australia was one of the countries that stood out for its particularly harsh and brutal coercive measures in its pandemic policy.
As one of the issues, Pfizer representatives also confirmed that a separate batch of vaccines was imported into Australia for their own workers. Hewitt justified this on the grounds that the government order went to vaccination clinics and they did not want to vaccinate their own staff at that expense.
It is also worth noting that another vaccine manufacturer, Moderna, did not make a significantly better impression when it appeared before the same committee. For example, Senator Rennick asked whether and how much of the company's profits it was prepared to contribute to help victims of serious adverse reactions to vaccines. There was no clear answer to this question. Company representatives said that the safety of vaccines is very important to them, but pointed out that they carry no responsibility – there is indemnity and this is a matter for the government.