Pfizer vaccine and COVID transmission: MEP posts misleading video
The purpose of clinical studies of the Pfizer vaccine was not to measure its effectiveness on transmission, which is better known today.
Screenshot from viral post by MEP Rob Roos.
A video posted on Twitter by an MEP caused an uproar on social media. This argues that Pfizer did not study the effectiveness of its vaccine in preventing the transmission of COVID-19 before marketing it and that this was hidden.
However, this fact was well known at the time of the vaccine's approval and there was never any question of testing its effect on transmission when it was approved, according to experts. That said, more recent studies show that it does reduce transmission.
ALERT: During a COVID hearing, a Pfizer executive admitted that the vaccine has never been tested to prevent transmission. “Get vaccinated to protect others” has always been a lie. The only reason vaccine passports were imposed: to force people to get vaccinated. The planet needs to know. Share this video!
This is what we can read in a tweet from Dutch MEP Rob Roos. In the video that accompanies this tweet, Mr. Roos questions Janine Small, a representative of Pfizer, before a committee of the European Parliament.
I have a short question for you, for which I would like a clear answer. I will speak in English so that there is no misunderstanding. Was the effectiveness of Pfizer's COVID vaccine in reducing transmission tested prior to release? asks Mr. Roos.
As to whether we were aware that the vaccine prevented immunization [sic] before it hit the market, no, Ms. Small replies with a laugh.
You know, we had to go at the speed of science to really understand what was going on in the market.
In the video, Mr. Roos adds: I find it shocking and even criminal.
In just over 24 hours, the video had nearly 10 million views on Twitter. Countless articles, videos and publications on all social networks relayed this information in many languages.
Screenshot of Maxime Bernier's retweets and the official account of the Conservative Party of Quebec
Closer to home, People's Party of Canada (PPC) leader Maxime Bernier shared the video. THE VACCINATION CAMPAIGNS WERE BASED ON A LIE. Pfizer has never tested its "vaccine" to find out if it was preventing transmission. Do you believe us now? he wrote Tuesday afternoon.
The official Twitter account of the Conservative Party of Quebec followed suit. Pfizer admitted to the European Parliament [sic] that the vaccine had never been tested to prevent transmission of the virus. Which brings us to the next question: what was the vaccine passport for? wrote the party on Tuesday evening.
Still, the experts we contacted see no major revelation: it was well-known information at the time of the publication. Pfizer vaccine market. In fact, in a press release from the US FDA issued when granting emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine on December 11, 2021, US authorities could not have been clearer.
There is no data to determine that the vaccine prevents the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [the virus that causes COVID] from one person to another, can we read in this press release.
In another statement from the FDA, this one published earlier, in May 2021, same thing: At this very moment, we have only limited data to know whether the vaccine can prevent transmission from one person to another.
According to Dr. Alain Lamarre, an expert in immunology and virology at the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS), the MP's question was directed in such a way as to produce a seemingly shocking answer, and the video presents the information. downright misleading.
Indeed, the clinical studies on the Pfizer vaccine before it was marketed concerned its effectiveness in preventing a vaccinated person from developing the severe form of COVID and not to reduce its transmission, he explains.
It's misleading to show this as something that's been hidden or anything. Pfizer's first clinical study, and it's the same for Moderna, it was well understood that the clinical study protocol had been developed to look at symptomatic events. The goal was not to look at asymptomatic cases, therefore potential transmission, he assures.
He adds that studies to determine if the vaccine could prevent the transmission of COVID would have been much more complex and would have delayed the marketing of the vaccine for years in the context of a health crisis which was then at its height. /p>
“It wasn't hidden at all, it was pretty clear, and at the time it had not been considered the number one priority. It was really to reduce symptoms and hospitalizations. »
— Dr. Alain Lamarre, expert in immunology and virology at the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS)
Same story with Benoît Barbeau, professor in the Department of Science biologists from UQAM and a specialist in virology. When vaccines were brought to market, the priority was to study efficacy to protect against symptoms and not to reduce transmission, he adds.
Moreover, Mr. Barbeau adds that if studies had not been carried out at the time to measure the effect of vaccines on transmission, several have been published since.
Just because a pharmaceutical company hasn't conducted studies that aim to show that the vaccine blocks transmission doesn't mean that the vaccine won't, he illustrates.
As early as three or four months after licensure [of the Pfizer vaccine], we already had data showing that asymptomatic infections were reduced by at least 80% and that transmission as a result was reduced, adds Mr. Lamarre.
Furthermore, both experts agree that while Pfizer had not studied its vaccine's effectiveness in reducing transmission, the idea that it would probably have a beneficial effect did not come out of nowhere.
We had data from other infections that clearly showed that if we prevent symptomatic infections, well, in general, that means that we reduce the viral load in vaccinated people, and by doing that, we reduce the risk of transfer, he explains. We weren't relying on anything. We had data for other respiratory infections.
That does not mean that everything is based on these first tests and that the vaccine passport was completely based on no data. We still had data that showed that there was protection against the risk of being infected, adds Mr. Barbeau.
For Dr. Alain Lamarre, it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that the Pfizer vaccine was approved in a completely different health context.
At that time, it was very clear that we were protecting others [by getting vaccinated]. Today, with the new variants, the protection against infection has decreased compared to what we had at that time. But it protects a certain part of the transmission. Not completely. Nothing is ever 100% in biology. But it's still true that it still protects against disease and transmission, he says.