A Pfizer spokesperson admitted company employees were given a “special batch” of Covid-19 vaccine, materially different to the vaccine distributed to the rest of the population. The shocking revelation came during a Senate hearing in Australia, when the Pfizer spokesperson revealed that the Big Pharma giant imported a special batch of COVID-19 vaccines solely for their employee vaccination program.
Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts led the interrogation of Pfizer Australia’s Country Medical Director, Dr. Krishan Thiru, and Head of Regulatory Sciences, Dr. Brian Hewitt, with his forceful inquiries eventually leading to Dr. Thiru admitting Pfizer employees did not receive the normal vaccine. Watch:
BOMBSHELL: Pfizer employees were given a *special batch*… different from what was forced into the general population 🚨🚨🚨 pic.twitter.com/CDww6wxFif
— Pelham (@Resist_05) August 4, 2023
The news that Pfizer employees were not jabbed with the regular Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine that was forced on the public is not surprisingly considering Dr Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech, the company that worked with Pfizer to develop the vaccine, admitted on camera that he did not get jabbed with the Covid vaccine either.
According to Sen. Roberts, Big Pharma made a fortune out of the Australian people due to the government’s hardline WEF-approved pandemic management.
Sen. Roberts demanded to know what role Pfizer played in the government’s decisions to make vaccines mandatory 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.
However, 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.
“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 program, 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.