Whoa! Pfizer Spokesperson Blurts Out In Senate Hearing That Pfizer Employees Given Special Batch Of COVID Shot - Not Same As Given To Public (Video)

Can you say placebo?  Yep, I’m guessing that is exactly what they gave to their employees.  During a Senate hearing in Australia, a Pfizer spokesperson revealed that the Big Pharma sorcerer provided a special batch of their experimental COVID shots to employees, a batch that was not given to the public.

Take a look.

• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
• Build Your Own Food Forest & Save 5% With Promo Code TIMBROWN
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
• Save Up To 66% Off MyPillow with Promo Code TIMBROWN

The Gateway Pundit reports:

The admission came during a rigorous questioning session on Wednesday, in which Pfizer Australia’s Country Medical Director, Dr. Krishan Thiru, and Head of Regulatory Sciences, Dr. Brian Hewitt, spoke before the Australian Senate’s ‘Education and Employment Legislation Committee’ about the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts led the interrogation with forceful inquiries regarding Pfizer’s potential involvement in the introduction of vaccine mandates for employment in Australia.

Senator Roberts, in his questioning, alleged a significant transfer of wealth from the Australian people to Big Pharma via the government’s Covid-19 mismanagement.

He sought clarity on Pfizer’s role in implementing vaccine mandates for employment and their participation in potential government bans on alternative treatments such as Ivermectin.

“Pfizer has no involvement, had no involvement in the imposition of vaccine mandates… Pfizer has had no involvement in relation to Ivermectin,” said Dr. Thiru.

The inquiry took a contentious turn when Roberts probed into Pfizer’s confidential indemnity agreements with the Australian government, suggesting that the taxpayers who funded the vaccine have the right to see the details of what they bought.

“Does the indemnity you have with the government extend to providing you with indemnity in the situation where an employee is forced by their employer to undergo vaccination and then experiences harm? And if you do have indemnity, I want the proof,” Roberts asked.

Dr. Thiru maintained that the specifics of these agreements remain confidential, per standard practice for contractual arrangements between the government and private organizations.

“Senator, any indemnity agreements between Pfizer and the Australian government are confidential and we are not able to discuss that in this forum,” said Thiru.

“Does the indemnity you have with the government extend to providing you with indemnity in the situation where an employee is forced by their employer to undergo vaccination and then experiences harm? And if you do have indemnity, I want the proof,” Roberts asked.

Dr. Thiru maintained that the specifics of these agreements remain confidential, per standard practice for contractual arrangements between the government and private organizations.

“Senator, any indemnity agreements between Pfizer and the Australian government are confidential and we are not able to discuss that in this forum,” said Thiru.

“Why are they confidential? Because as a taxpayer, I paid for those injections even though I didn’t take any. Why are they confidential? From taxpayers, 26 million Australians. What are you hiding?” Roberts asked.

Roberts also queried about Pfizer’s own employee vaccination program, which Dr. Thiru confirmed was active and conducted in alignment with public health guidance, allowing accommodations or exemptions for those with specific medical or religious reasons for not being vaccinated. He did, however, acknowledge that a small number of colleagues departed the company in light of this program.

Roberts then questioned Pfizer’s use of a specific batch of vaccine for their employees that was not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), to which Dr. Hewitt CLAIMED that this was done to ensure that no vaccine would be taken from government stocks.

“We’ve read that your vaccine mandate was using your own batch of vaccine, especially imported for Pfizer, which was not tested by the TGA. Is that correct?” Roberts asked.

Dr. Hewitt then responded, “So Pfizer undertook to import a batch of vaccine specifically for the employee vaccination programme, and that was so that no vaccine would be taken from government stocks that was being delivered to clinics as needed.”

Roberts then asked, “Does your contract with the government for supply of COVID injections include a clause that negates your indemnity in the event of Pfizer committing a crime such as fraudulent treatment of trial data? The question is simple. What is the answer? Yes or no?”

Dr. Thiru was unable to provide a definitive response when questioned about whether Pfizer’s contract with the Australian government included clauses that would nullify their indemnity in the event of “fraudulent treatment of trial data.”

“Senator Roberts, as I had mentioned previously, the contents of Pfizer’s contract with the Australian government remains confidential, and I don’t have any information that I can provide to the Committee in relation to that,” Thiru said.

Roberts’ suspicion extended to the origins of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, questioning whether it was initially developed as a countermeasure for the American Department of Defence. Dr. Thiru responded, emphasizing the vaccine’s development was solely aimed at combating the global public health emergency resulting from the pandemic.

Read the rest…

When will the arrest of Albert Bourla and others start taking place and when are the people going to start construction on the gallows big enough to deal with all these criminals?

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media