Why Haven't Norway, Sweden And Finland Stopped The Pfizer Shot?
Neither company disputes this
It is no secret that Norway, Sweden and Finland have ‘suspended’ the use of AstraZeneca (a genetically modified adenovirus design), and the use of Moderna shots in the under 50s (an mRNA shot design).
Although the countries use the vaguely worded ‘precautionary term’, it seems none of them have suspended Pfizer, as a ‘precaution’, with Finland even proposing Pfizer as the alternative:
Que? Scientists and medical professionals might try to argue that there’s somehow a difference in the mRNA shot designs between Moderna and Pfizer, which is a reasonable argument. Low rung Pfizer shills might even try to argue that the Pfizer shots are somehow superior.
However we can actually cite both companies as proof the shots aren’t different in design in the slightest.
Enter The Moderna And Pfizer Lawsuit
Something the mainstream news were very, very quiet on — likely trying to paint the pharmaceutical industry as full of saints rather than thieving, murdering crooks — is the lawsuit between Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech (BioNTech manufacture on Pfizer’s behalf; for simplicity just the name Pfizer will be used).
About four months back Moderna sued Pfizer for patent infringement. Moderna had said that during the pandemic they would not enforce their patents, however, the timeframe on that is up and they started in late 2022.
Pfizer’s argument doesn’t dispute this similarity, surprisingly. Instead, the total opposite, their argument is that… Moderna stole the patent from Pfizer first, with Pfizer countersuing back last month.
Now, most armchair non-lawyers like myself will notice this appears to be Pfizer simply trying to muddy the waters with a “no, you” style accusation, however their legal team have likely assessed the situation and probably realise there’s so much evidence of similarity between Moderna and Pfizer’s shots that Pfizer cannot deny the similarity.
What we’re seeing is confirmation from both companies that there is an undeniable similarity between the two shot designs.
In short: they’re the same shot technology. They aren’t ‘different’ and they aren’t ‘superior’. So if you suspend Moderna, you are obliged to also suspend Pfizer.
So Why Haven't Norway, Sweden And Finland Stopped The Pfizer Shot?
If Moderna and Pfizer use the same dangerous technology, why have Norway, Sweden and Finland only stopped the Moderna mRNA shot? Why have they not also stopped the Pfizer mRNA shot by association? Why are Finland even recommending the Pfizer shot when they use the same technology?
The most likely guess is corruption. Moderna are a US based firm, and so they only really have tentacles in the US, hence why the FDA haven’t suspended the Moderna shots.
Meanwhile, Pfizer have tentacles in both America (New York headquarters) and Europe (headquarters in Germany) — with a stronger European footing. As a result, the European agencies have no problem with shutting down both UK based AstraZeneca and US based Moderna, because fundamentally they don’t have deep enough ties.
Could Stella Kyriakides’ Corruption Be Related To This?
Per the EMA leaks video (at 7:01 onwards), Stella Kyriakides, the so-called European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, purposefully phoned health agencies individually to avoid alerting to the public of an Article 5(2) ‘Unforeseen Variation’ over the Pfizer shots’ mRNA instability issues:
Essentially, this prevents the public from officially knowing that there was a problem with the Pfizer shots to begin with, and is a cover-up.
It turns out Stella appears to have accepted a bribe, having received 4 million Euros seemingly out of nowhere in a Cypriot bank account (Stella is a Cypriot resident, for context). This was within 5 months of the Pfizer shots’ approval:
The joint account of the EU health commissioner and her husband unexpectedly ended up with 4 million euros. The Cypriot press is already literally talking about passive bribery.
Even if we were to ignore the outrageous bribery and cover-up — Stella has a giant conflict of interest because she both oversees the health concerns of the shots and the contract agreements.
It is a huge conflict-of-interest that the person who regulates the shots is also the one engaged in secretive, profitable negotiations with the companies being regulated.
This would be like if the head of the NHS was also head of the NHS fraud investigation group, or if a company CEO was head of independent safety evaluations for their own product.
Stella Wasn’t The Only Corrupt EU Bureaucrat In Bed With Pfizer
Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, had engaged in secretive texts with the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla. The EU ombudsman correctly advised that the text messages ought to be made public.
However crook Leyen a day later declared she ‘couldn’t find the texts’ relating to the EU’s shot deal with Pfizer, and apparently went unpunished for this deletion of crucial evidence of corruption.
Meanwhile child murdering crook Albert Bourla refused to attend an EU Parliament COVID panel, seemingly with no consequences, despite the fact there’s clear evidence the mRNA shots kill people, and despite the fact there is clear evidence of Pfizer having infiltrated and corrupted EU politics.
Even Members Of The European Parliament Can’t See Contracts
We should be deeply suspicious of the murderous secrecy that goes on in the child-killing EU. Even the Elon Musk associated CureVac’s contract with the EU had a near quarter of the contract redacted, something even MEPs complained about to the EU Parliament.
Not even MEPs whose job it is to oversee EU Parliamentary affairs can see what secret, child-murdering affairs are going on behind the scenes with these toxic shots. No, only a selection of government officials involved in the secrecy and bribery are allowed to see the real contract.
European Health Agencies Are Deeply Corrupted
Even when health agencies suspend shots, they always exhibit unscientific favouritism. Stella sold you out for a mere 4 million (how much are children’s lives worth, Stella?). Murdering people with shots is okay so long as it has a Pfizer sticker on it, according to Finland, Norway and Sweden.
It is evident that the health “regulators” are deeply corrupt, infiltrated by industry bias, of which toothless ombudsmen and even MEPs are unable to meaningfully hold to account in any way shape or form.
Why Haven't Norway, Sweden And Finland Stopped The Pfizer Shot?
Corruption, of course.
Help make the financially unviable Daily Beagle financially viable.
Learned something new?
Or leave a comment indicating your superior research skills below:
Most governments over-committed to purchasing many more shots than they needed. My guess is that the Pfizer contracts are more tightly worded, thus not enabling the purchaser to get out of the commitment. Hence Pfizer is the last supplier standing. I don’t think the Scandinavian governments are actively pushing boosters, but if the people want them, they will get Pfizer. Some governments are trying to export unwanted shots to poor African nations but the demand from there is pitiful due to prior experience with BMGF.
There is one material difference between the Pfizer and Moderna shots: Moderna provides a much higher dosage of the lipid nanoparticles per injection.
I don’t know how heavily that fact weighs in the European countries’ reasoning – either stated or real – for favoring Pfizer, but if somebody is going to put this stuff in their body, probably the less the better.