Pfizer fires whistleblower who leaked COVID emails to Project Veritas.

submitted by [deleted] from (gvid.tv)

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]goonmessiah 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She struck a nerve and now they’re trying to make an example of her.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Company executives discussed how to best hide information from the public regarding the use of fetal cell lines derived from aborted babies in the development of the COVID vaccine.

Jesus please us. Do we live in a world where you have to hide that you've got a human cell to test a vaccine that you're going to inject into humans?

What the fuck should we be using? Handfuls of sand?

[–]HiddenFox 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They can use whatever cells they want, just don't lie about it or try and cover it up.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

HiddenFox has it right, but also, they can make whatever they want, most of us don't care, but we care when they try to force their concoctions on us.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Literal strawman. The issue is hiding information. If that didn't happen, maybe more people would consider taking the jab.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The issue is hiding information. If that didn't happen, maybe more people would consider taking the jab.

Hidden?

Who the fuck would assume that an mRNA vaccine hadn't been injected into a human cell as part of the development?

The whole thing works by utilising the resources and the chemistry of a human cell. Of course it's going to be developed using human cells. You don't have to announce the bleeding obvious to ensure that people know. Because it's bleeding obvious.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It was denied it came from aborted fetal cells. Also, how is it obvious? Vaccines are traditionally injected into chicken eggs until this mRNA one.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pfizer used the HEK 293 line didn't they?

It's not known whether is was from an abortion or a spontaneous miscarriage. It's only known that the line derives from cells isolated in the Netherlands in the early 1970s. (And that they're embryonic kidney cells).

Traditional vaccines grow the virus in chicken eggs, before the protein that the immune system is to be trained to recognize is separated off the viruses. But you still test what happens in a human cell as part of the development, generally speaking. Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is like that. And they used the HEK 293 cell line as part of the development.

But it's much more obvious in the case of the mRNA vaccines, because they don't do the chicken egg bit. The vaccine doesn't do anything until it is in a human cell, and then it generates the spike protein. You'd need to stick it in a human cell to see if it does what you hope, and makes the spike protein.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Everything she reported is already old news in other versions of their serums.

This isn't red meat for the pubic to push back against.

It's a beef human jerky rawhide for the MSM to pretend at controversy.

But it's also a defiler's confession.
This way they can someday morally claim the public knew what they were accepting into their bodies.

Like a karmic amnesty.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Everything she reported is already old news in other versions of their serums.

You use human cells to see what something will do when injected into a human. It's not an "other version of their serums" thing, it's simply a step that you would take. Especially with an mRNA vaccine, that needs to do its thing in a human cell.

This isn't red meat for the pubic to push back against.

I'm not familiar with the metaphor here. Do the public push back against red meat?

It's a beef human jerky rawhide for the MSM to pretend at controversy.

It's one of those human cell lines that you can buy for medical research. Originally harvested back in the 1950s. It's not rawhide. It's not jerky. It's a cell line.

But it's also a defiler's confession.

"Defiler"? How so?

This way they can someday morally claim the public knew what they were accepting into their bodies.

The vaccine doesn't have human cells in it. It's just tested on a human cell line.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You use human cells to see what something will do when injected into a human.

They've been using fetal tissue (lung cells IIRC) to culture other human serums.
The Catholic Church acknowledges this, strongly indicating this is a fact.

They supposedly filter out cellular components, and whatnot. This still contains human proteins, etc.

The "filtered" argument is fairly weak.
Let someone make a serum with dog poo, and argue that the solution is "filtered".

Injecting this mystery material bypasses all of the normal biological defense systems.

The filtered cellular lung poo is within you. Defiled.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

They've been using fetal tissue (lung cells IIRC) to culture other human serums.

Okay. For what purpose?

The Catholic Church acknowledges this, strongly indicating this is a fact.

Really? I would've though that Pfizer would be a better source of information about what Pfizer are producing than the catholic church. The Catholic church won't even say what the Catholic church are up to with respect to money laundering and raping children. They're not an especially compelling indication of fact.

They supposedly filter out cellular components, and whatnot. This still contains human proteins, etc.

Plausible. They're a pharmaceutical company. Human proteins would be the ones you'd use to treat a human. Do you know which products?

The "filtered" argument is fairly weak.

What is it arguing?

Let someone make a serum with dog poo, and argue that the solution is "filtered".

What?

1) Dog poo doesn't make a serum.
2) The issue with injecting dog poo is that it's going to be contaminated with bacteria and possibly other pathogens.
3) A human cell line isn't contaminated with bacteria or other pathogens.
4) I presume they're not straining it through filter paper when they filter it. There'll be a biochemical process that isolates the desired proteins.

Injecting this mystery material bypasses all of the normal biological defense systems.

What is the product that is derived from this lung tissue?

The reason I ask is because I'm not clear on where is it injected, what it treats, or why and how it bypasses "normal biological defense systems". ... By which you mean the immune system?

The filtered cellular lung poo is within you. Defiled.

Okay. So you think lung tissue is contaminated with bacteria and pathogens in the same way as faeces, and so it's defiled.

You might be mistaken. Faeces is waste material from an animal. A cell line of fetal lung tissue isn't. It's living cells.

To be fair, you're drawing a pretty long bow to get from embryonic cell line to dog faeces. They're very dissimilar.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Using fetal material of any source, as an ingredient, for any reason, is vile beyond description.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Using fetal material of any source, as an ingredient, for any reason, is vile beyond description.

"Ingredient" probably isn't correct. They're probably isolating a protein generated by the cell, not that is part of the cell. But it's difficult to discuss when you haven't said what it is that you're talking about: What is the product that is derived from this lung tissue?

And "Fetal material" isn't correct. The cell line has been grown for decades in labs. The original cells were isolated from an embryo, but those cells are long gone.

And I don't follow "is vile beyond description". I understand why we are ethically bound to not hurt people, and even help them if we can. But most pregnancies end in miscarriage. Why the fuck should it matter if some of those cells are used to help people?

Can you get me to understand why it is "vile beyond description"?

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Can you get me to understand why it is "vile beyond description"?

Injecting this chimera sauce, into young children who cannot consent...

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Re: "chimera sauce".

What is the product that you're taking about that is being injected into young children?

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm bored of your pharma shillery.