We're a nation, in fact a world of sheep. Why do you say their employees would have rebelled? Did employees of other drug companies, mandated to get jabs, rebel? Soldiers? College students? Medical workers? ANY WORKERS, or ANYBODY? No. They may have given them a placebo for their own purposes, maybe to prevent damage to useful workers. But NOT because they would have rebelled.
We're a nation, in fact a world of sheep. Why do you say their employees would have rebelled? Did employees of other drug companies, mandated to get jabs, rebel? Soldiers? College students? Medical workers? ANY WORKERS, or ANYBODY? No. They may have given them a placebo for their own purposes, maybe to prevent damage to useful workers. But NOT because they would have rebelled.
The reason I said that was because the email was promoting a sense of security by stating the shots were different. The Pfizer employees would have known since they were in the business of their manufacture that they were dangerous, and so they had to be assured of safety, and that could only occur by giving them different shots. They could have spilled the beans on Pfizer otherwise. These workers had leverage that no other group had. They had the recipe, that would make it easier to push back.
If the employees were privy, I agree they'd be more likely to rebel. I don't think the rank and file had, or to this day have, any more idea than any other pharma workers. They were going to work, doing their jobs, oblivious to what was in the jabs. Sure, SOME employees knew, it didn't happen by itself. I'm surprised there's not more discussion and speculation about how we ended up with such killer jabs, and such variable lots. How it was done, by whom, at what points in production/distribution, how many knew the score, etc. One explanation is NOBODY really orchestrated anything. Just dangerous technology that never should have been used, shoddy manufacturing, crooked testing, all in the name of delivering product on time for the big bucks. I think that's possible. Also possibly a planned poisoning. Given the DOD involvement, seems likely more than sloppiness and haste for a payoff.
I see your point, just wondering though why would they send an email specifically stating the shots for employees were different in constituents? Why even say that?
Good question. My guess, which is exactly just a guess, is, since they aren't dumb (just bad) they know that while most employees would willingly line up for the jab anyway, a significant minority are smart enough to have reservations. Saying it was a "special batch just for them" would probably rope in at least SOME of those. Seems like a reasonable possibility, but just a guess.
I was listening to an ex employee at Pfizer at a manufacturing facility, whistleblower, they fired her. Lots of shady stuff going on there. She said most of the employees turned a blind eye, and the ones that realized something was really off left.
We're a nation, in fact a world of sheep. Why do you say their employees would have rebelled? Did employees of other drug companies, mandated to get jabs, rebel? Soldiers? College students? Medical workers? ANY WORKERS, or ANYBODY? No. They may have given them a placebo for their own purposes, maybe to prevent damage to useful workers. But NOT because they would have rebelled.
The reason I said that was because the email was promoting a sense of security by stating the shots were different. The Pfizer employees would have known since they were in the business of their manufacture that they were dangerous, and so they had to be assured of safety, and that could only occur by giving them different shots. They could have spilled the beans on Pfizer otherwise. These workers had leverage that no other group had. They had the recipe, that would make it easier to push back.
If the employees were privy, I agree they'd be more likely to rebel. I don't think the rank and file had, or to this day have, any more idea than any other pharma workers. They were going to work, doing their jobs, oblivious to what was in the jabs. Sure, SOME employees knew, it didn't happen by itself. I'm surprised there's not more discussion and speculation about how we ended up with such killer jabs, and such variable lots. How it was done, by whom, at what points in production/distribution, how many knew the score, etc. One explanation is NOBODY really orchestrated anything. Just dangerous technology that never should have been used, shoddy manufacturing, crooked testing, all in the name of delivering product on time for the big bucks. I think that's possible. Also possibly a planned poisoning. Given the DOD involvement, seems likely more than sloppiness and haste for a payoff.
I see your point, just wondering though why would they send an email specifically stating the shots for employees were different in constituents? Why even say that?
Good question. My guess, which is exactly just a guess, is, since they aren't dumb (just bad) they know that while most employees would willingly line up for the jab anyway, a significant minority are smart enough to have reservations. Saying it was a "special batch just for them" would probably rope in at least SOME of those. Seems like a reasonable possibility, but just a guess.
I was listening to an ex employee at Pfizer at a manufacturing facility, whistleblower, they fired her. Lots of shady stuff going on there. She said most of the employees turned a blind eye, and the ones that realized something was really off left.