At the outset of that video it's apparent she is oblivious to the meaning of "independent" ... and in the latter half she suddenly realizes that the questioner is onto her feeble "independence" and starts backpedaling. But it's people like this, petty bureaucrats and cogs in the huge machine that made it possible to injure millions, if not billions, of people with the coerced "vaccines."
I find it difficult to call these products actual vaccines because the CDC / FDA had to change the definition of "vaccine" to incorporate these hideous experimental gene products.
They changed the definition of āvaccine.ā Iām sure use of the term is designed to make people more willing to get it, and likely fits in with some legal precedent for mandates.
The guy questioning her is missing something here. She was not just on Pfizer's dole prior to becoming an "independent" board member...she never quit and is and has been on the payroll all along. How about the other four?
He couldnāt ask her about the others. That would considered not relevant to her testimony. And likely speculative too. As if she is privy to all the details about the others. What others on the board did before being on it or how much they got paid is of no consequence to why she is being questioned.
This is the textbook example of why a defense lawyer tells you not to talk to the police, even if you have nothing to hide. It is also a textbook example of whoever the other sideās lawyer is (says this is cross exam) not preparing their witness. A lawyer doing his/her job properly tells that witness that their job on cross exam is to answer the question asked and nothing more. Her response just made that lawyerās point so much more potent than without her excessive ramblings.
Iām also surprised nobody objected to the question as to why Pfizer doesnāt just use employees. Bad lawyering. That calls for speculation. She isnāt a Pfizer manager or executive and the only thing she could offer would be purely speculative or conjecture.
You are assuming she does not grasp the idea of independence, rather than giving testimony (likely at the coaching of attorneys) meant to help her in the event of lawsuits and to give a rationale for sheeple to ātrustā her.
So, not only was it not independent at all. They used the person telling them how to test to verify the testing. Meaning. If she was wrong on anything there wasnt anyone else involved in validating it other than her. The person responsible for raising alarms to the vaccine maybe not being safe is the same person that told them it was.
It's a chicken or the egg situation with drugs. Did do drugs before which makes them easier to control or did they start to make their "jobs" easier.
Apparently drugs like adderall lower your vibration levels and, in doing so, suppress emotions. Most, if not all, anti-depressants function like that which is why most of the mass shooters were on them.
You canāt serve two mastersā¦ I mean for 2000 plus years this has been a saying. If your master is paying your bills you are not gonna bite the hand that feeds you ā¦. Another age old sage wisdom quoteā¦ and more modern quote would be called CONFLICT of interestā¦
All these credentials and degrees and these people are obviously stupid.
This is just shitty lawyer tricks. He hasn't proven anything. All he's done is lay out the innuendo at this point that because she worked for Pfizer in the past that her opinion on this board was somehow biased. There's nothing to prove that.
Yes, she was paid. If you want the opinion of top scientists with experience, knowledge, and a reputation you can trust, you're going to have to pay them well. She was well paid. That doesn't imply anything other than that she received what her work was worth.
As for "independence," if Pfizer's paying for it, some lawyer can always argue what this man did. The real question is who else would pay for such a service? Who else has the motive to spend the kind of money her team commands if not the company who wants their evaluation? The trick is in the rules. The lawyer never made a case to show that the rules under which they operated biased their result. As far as we know, they were fed the same BS data the rest of us were. She says she had leeway to give her own independent opinion and she stakes her professional career behind saying that's exactly what she did. And this lawyer gave me no good reason to suspect otherwise.
I'm not going to claim she's innocent. That wasn't proven in 3:31. But neither was her guilt. And I personally find it offensive when people try and hustle innuendo and supposition as if it's definitive proof of anything. I've well past fed up with watching media personalities and pundits operate that way. Concrete proof or STFU.
The real question ... 'so what was your independant determination regarding the safety of the Pfizer vaccine?' We already know the correct answer so just say it!
I think Pfizer knew she was easily manipulated, and THAT is why she was put on the "independent" group. I don't think she's crooked, although she may be, but she does appear to be clueless. Clueless and easily manipulated is what they wanted, and it's what they got with this one.
At the outset of that video it's apparent she is oblivious to the meaning of "independent" ... and in the latter half she suddenly realizes that the questioner is onto her feeble "independence" and starts backpedaling. But it's people like this, petty bureaucrats and cogs in the huge machine that made it possible to injure millions, if not billions, of people with the coerced "vaccines."
I find it difficult to call these products actual vaccines because the CDC / FDA had to change the definition of "vaccine" to incorporate these hideous experimental gene products.
Absolutely right. Do you remember any vaccines that you continually had to take?
I also noticed they started calling the flu shot the "flu vaccine" this year.
They changed the definition of āvaccine.ā Iām sure use of the term is designed to make people more willing to get it, and likely fits in with some legal precedent for mandates.
The guy questioning her is missing something here. She was not just on Pfizer's dole prior to becoming an "independent" board member...she never quit and is and has been on the payroll all along. How about the other four?
Exactly.
You got this from the clip? I replayed and she says "pfiser pays me for..." then she talks about having been an advisor, past tense.
He couldnāt ask her about the others. That would considered not relevant to her testimony. And likely speculative too. As if she is privy to all the details about the others. What others on the board did before being on it or how much they got paid is of no consequence to why she is being questioned.
This is the textbook example of why a defense lawyer tells you not to talk to the police, even if you have nothing to hide. It is also a textbook example of whoever the other sideās lawyer is (says this is cross exam) not preparing their witness. A lawyer doing his/her job properly tells that witness that their job on cross exam is to answer the question asked and nothing more. Her response just made that lawyerās point so much more potent than without her excessive ramblings.
Iām also surprised nobody objected to the question as to why Pfizer doesnāt just use employees. Bad lawyering. That calls for speculation. She isnāt a Pfizer manager or executive and the only thing she could offer would be purely speculative or conjecture.
"Well, I work for pfizer and they pay me, but I'm independent."
Who could trust this .. person .. with complicated medical expertise when she can't even grasp the simple concept of independence?
You are assuming she does not grasp the idea of independence, rather than giving testimony (likely at the coaching of attorneys) meant to help her in the event of lawsuits and to give a rationale for sheeple to ātrustā her.
She is more focused on being a good Pfizer loyalist than giving 2 shits about the general public. She burns in Hell.
So, not only was it not independent at all. They used the person telling them how to test to verify the testing. Meaning. If she was wrong on anything there wasnt anyone else involved in validating it other than her. The person responsible for raising alarms to the vaccine maybe not being safe is the same person that told them it was.
I think it more likely that you have to be an attorney to understand the ālogic.ā
The cognitive disconnect she displays should eliminate her from any decision making power anywhere never mind public safety.
It's a chicken or the egg situation with drugs. Did do drugs before which makes them easier to control or did they start to make their "jobs" easier.
Apparently drugs like adderall lower your vibration levels and, in doing so, suppress emotions. Most, if not all, anti-depressants function like that which is why most of the mass shooters were on them.
So either way, the drugs help do the job.
Itās crazy how we give Trump credit for āhaving it allā yet he knowingly advised his own citizens to inject this poison.
Try again.
This is wildā¦even normies wonāt be comfortable with this!
You canāt serve two mastersā¦ I mean for 2000 plus years this has been a saying. If your master is paying your bills you are not gonna bite the hand that feeds you ā¦. Another age old sage wisdom quoteā¦ and more modern quote would be called CONFLICT of interestā¦ All these credentials and degrees and these people are obviously stupid.
Just like Federal Reserves is as federal as FedEx/Federal Express ... nothing to do w/ the government.
This is just shitty lawyer tricks. He hasn't proven anything. All he's done is lay out the innuendo at this point that because she worked for Pfizer in the past that her opinion on this board was somehow biased. There's nothing to prove that.
Yes, she was paid. If you want the opinion of top scientists with experience, knowledge, and a reputation you can trust, you're going to have to pay them well. She was well paid. That doesn't imply anything other than that she received what her work was worth.
As for "independence," if Pfizer's paying for it, some lawyer can always argue what this man did. The real question is who else would pay for such a service? Who else has the motive to spend the kind of money her team commands if not the company who wants their evaluation? The trick is in the rules. The lawyer never made a case to show that the rules under which they operated biased their result. As far as we know, they were fed the same BS data the rest of us were. She says she had leeway to give her own independent opinion and she stakes her professional career behind saying that's exactly what she did. And this lawyer gave me no good reason to suspect otherwise.
I'm not going to claim she's innocent. That wasn't proven in 3:31. But neither was her guilt. And I personally find it offensive when people try and hustle innuendo and supposition as if it's definitive proof of anything. I've well past fed up with watching media personalities and pundits operate that way. Concrete proof or STFU.
I work for Pfizer, but trust me, the study was independentā¦Bwahahahaha
The real question ... 'so what was your independant determination regarding the safety of the Pfizer vaccine?' We already know the correct answer so just say it!
It's mind boggling and wrong on every level. She was hired as a PFIZER "EXPERT" and was also a PFIZER "EMPLOYEE."
Don't make me laugh......Oops, I laughed!
I think Pfizer knew she was easily manipulated, and THAT is why she was put on the "independent" group. I don't think she's crooked, although she may be, but she does appear to be clueless. Clueless and easily manipulated is what they wanted, and it's what they got with this one.