By Julie Ponesse at Brownstone dot org.

[The following is an excerpt from Julie Ponesse's book, Our Last Innocent Moment.]

One of the things we have learned over the last three years is just how much regulatory capture factored into the Covid response, how economics turned vaccine technology into an industrial profit machine. One crucial piece of evidence for this came from the Pfizer report, released last year by the FDA as part of a US court order, containing what Naomi Wolf calls "evidence of the greatest crime against humanity in the history of our species."

The report shows massive incongruity between how the vaccines were marketed to the public and what Pfizer knew about them prior to their release to market. It shows:

Pfizer knew their gene-based injections had negative efficacy as early as November 2020 (with the third most common side effect of the vaccine being Covid, itself)

shortly after the vaccines came to market, Pfizer hired 2,400 full-time employees to process the adverse event reports (a stunning fact given the culture of silence that prevented so many adverse events even from being reported to, or processed by, physicians)

that the vaccines cause myocarditis within a week after injection

the shot's lipid nanoparticles do not remain at the injection site but are quickly biodistributed throughout the body to the brain, liver, spleen, and ovaries where they may remain permanently

an asymmetry between the adverse events that were disclosed to the public (chills, fatigue, swelling at injection site) and those contained in the documents (haemorrhages, blood clots, neurological disorders, Bell's palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome)

there were 61 deaths from stroke, half of which took place within 48 hours of injection

These are the things Pfizer knew. These are the things Pfizer did not reveal to the public. These are the things that made us the turkeys and Pfizer, the butcher.

It has been said that there is no historical parallel to the Covid vaccines: a vigorously marketed experimental product on a global scale, which garnered almost perfect support from policymakers. The scale of money involved is almost beyond comprehension. Pfizer's 2023 "Annual Review" states: "2022 was a year in which we set all-time highs in several financial categories." That year, Pfizer's revenue was a record-setting $100.3 billion, 38% coming from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

While it's no secret that pharmaceutical companies spend large portions of their budgets on marketing, it's hard to think of pharmaceutical products being marketed like cars or lipstick. But they are. Perhaps even more so. In 2022, Pfizer spent $2.8 billion on marketing, a mere 2% of the revenue they earned from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. But just how pharmaceutical products are marketed is a complex business.

One thing we find in the Pfizer report is a long list of donations to organizations that encouraged vaccine use, and/or directly addressed vaccine hesitancy. Pfizer couldn't produce ads endorsing mandates - that would have been too obvious - but they could fund various lobbying groups, healthcare colleges, media, and even medical journals that promote vaccine use, address vaccine hesitancy, and support mandates.

Among Pfizer's charitable donations, the report lists: $200,000 to the American Academy of Paediatrics, $100,000 to the American College of Emergency Physicians for Vaccine confidence PSAs, and $337,550 to the American Lung Association's Pneumonia Awareness Campaign. (If you want to promote the uptake of a vaccine for a respiratory virus, it makes strategic sense to advertise pneumonia as a severe side effect of Covid.)

It is also noteworthy that Pfizer is a regular contributor to universities, most of which mandated their product. When the newspapers started to report my story in the fall of 2021, the Toronto Star contacted Arthur Caplan, Director of Medical Ethics at NYU Medical Centre, for a comment.

His response was "I've been working on vaccines ...