Johnson & Johnson: Children Don’t Need the ‘F*cking’ COVID Vaccine...

[DB]

SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

[NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. – Sept. 27, 2021] Project Veritas released the third video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today exposing two Johnson & Johnson [J&J] officials, who argue children do not need to take the COVID vaccine in part because of the potential long-term side effects.

Johnson & Johnson: Children Don’t Need the ‘F*cking’ COVID Vaccine Because There Are ‘Unknown Repercussions Down the Road’ … Want to ‘Punish’ Unvaccinated Adults and Turn Them Into ‘Second-Grade Citizens’ for Not Complying with Mandates.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/johnson-and-johnson-children-dont-need-the-f-cking-covid-vaccine-because/

[Hoodat]

Does any sane person think that I would consider getting the jab after hearing this?

[DB]

The world has gone completely insane. I really don't get it.

[catfish1957]

Insanity?  More like a colluded plot to make money on a putting likely is a collosal massive scale.

The evil trifecta of Ticker symbol PFE (which I disclose I own some), Gates, and Fauci stand to make 10's to 100's of Billions in a long term world wide vaccination plan.

[Hoodat]

Insanity?  More like a colluded plot to make money on a putting likely is a collosal massive scale.

This isn't just about money.  They have already been paid for the jabs.  Yet they insist that they be used.  Why?

[DB]

Insanity?  More like a colluded plot to make money on a putting likely is a collosal massive scale.

The evil trifecta of Ticker symbol PFE (which I disclose I own some), Gates, and Fauci stand to make 10's to 100's of Billions in a long term world wide vaccination plan.

It isn't just on the Covid front. The insanity is wide spread. A massive disconnect from reality denying the basic truths of our existence.

[catfish1957]

This isn't just about money.  They have already been paid for the jabs.  Yet they insist that they be used.  Why?

Don't forget Pfizer is (1) planning to suggest vaccinating  down to age of infant. (2) make this an annual mandatory maintenance shot, and depending on the political climate in each individual country they may sell 5,000,000,000 doses a year into infiinity.

If that is not a perpetual slot machine business model, I don't know what is.

[Hoodat]

Pfizer is getting paid $10 per jab, too.  But there is still something sinister going on.  It's like getting physically addicted to a drug like xanax or seconal.  Once you're on it, you have to keep taking more of it.  And if you quit cold turkey, you die.  There is something in the jab that triggers some reaction in your body that will eventually lead to death, unless you keep getting boosters.  The trick for Big Pharma is to get you to take that first dose.

[Polly Ticks]

Beside the obvious take-aways from this video, I really hate the way that J&J scientist kept referring to a baby as "it".  A baby is a person, not a thing.

[catfish1957]

Beside the obvious take-aways from this video, I really hate the way that J&J scientist kept referring to a baby as "it".  A baby is a person, not a thing.

Callous Big Pharma researcher sees them only as data points.  That is a lot more common than you realize.

[Kamaji]

Are these two still employed by J&J?

[PeteS in CA]

Brandon Schadt, Johnson & Johnson Regional Business Lead

He's a marketing and sales dude.

Justin Durrant, Johnson & Johnson Scientist

"Scientist"? Why such a general word? To give a fake veneer of credibility? As for "Johnson & Johnson Scientist", this all but certainly means Durrant was not involved in the development, and probably not with the testing, of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine. Because the vaccine was developed by J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is located in Belgium. IOW, Durrant was not speaking from within his expertise or direct knowledge.

Once again, has Project Veritas been gamed, or is PV gaming its viewers/readers?

[DB]

He's a marketing and sales dude.

"Scientist"? Why such a general word? To give a fake veneer of credibility? As for "Johnson & Johnson Scientist", this all but certainly means Durrant was not involved in the development, and probably not with the testing, of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine. Because the vaccine was developed by J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which is located in Belgium. IOW, Durrant was not speaking from within his expertise or direct knowledge.

Once again, has Project Veritas been gamed, or is PV gaming its viewers/readers?

Funny how you are making assumptions about what you claim is someone else's assumptions... How in the hell do you know if this is or isn't within his direct knowledge?

[Kamaji]

Somebody may be getting played.  The only Justin Durrant I can find, on an admittedly quickie search, who appears to have some biology-related science credentials, is this guy (the owner of Spore Labs):  https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-durrant-861324120/

[jmyrlefuller]

Yeah, that Durrant guy seems like a stooge.

The other guy might have given some insight into why J&J hasn't been pursuing EUA for under-18s for their vaccine and basically given the monopoly to Pfizer for that market.

I'm starting to get the sense that O'Keefe is jumping the shark.

[PeteS in CA]

Funny how you are making assumptions about what you claim is someone else's assumptions... How in the hell do you know if this is or isn't within his direct knowledge?

1. He doesn't work for Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

2. He lives in the US, not Belgium.

I used inductive reasoning - wrong division of the company, wrong country to have worked on developing the vaccine. Meanwhile, PV didn't specify the guy's "scientific" specialty. Lying by omission? PV doesn't know? PV was incredibly careless?

I see you didn't comment about the marketing dude.

As with the first installment of PV's imagined gotcha, PV's sources are people with little or no actual direct knowledge of J&J's vaccine.

[PeteS in CA]

Yeah, that Durrant guy seems like a stooge.

The other guy might have given some insight into why J&J hasn't been pursuing EUA for under-18s for their vaccine and basically given the monopoly to Pfizer for that market.

I'm starting to get the sense that O'Keefe is jumping the shark.

Well, Moderna applied for EUA for ages 12-18 back on June 10, https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-files-emergency-use-authorization-its-covid-19-vaccine . The FDA seems to have done nothing about it, now 3 1/2 months later. Maybe J&J, which received initial EUA in late February, is simply several months behind Pfizer and Moderna. Or maybe J&J took notice of how Moderna has been ignored and decided not to bother.

[jmyrlefuller]

Well, Moderna applied for EUA for ages 12-18 back on June 10, https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-files-emergency-use-authorization-its-covid-19-vaccine . The FDA seems to have done nothing about it, now 3 1/2 months later. Maybe J&J, which received initial EUA in late February, is simply several months behind Pfizer and Moderna. Or maybe J&J took notice of how Moderna has been ignored and decided not to bother.

Moderna, I can understand why the FDA has tabled them, because by most accounts the Moderna shot is far more potent—which may overwhelm a younger person's immune system. There seems to be an inverse relationship between vaccine reaction and age: younger people tend to get a stronger reaction. So if there is something in the data that the FDA has seen that would be a red flag, that would be it... and that wouldn't be as much of an issue with J&J, which by most accounts is milder with its effects (and would provide a much quicker path to legal "full vaccination").

You may be right on the J&J shot. I know Pfizer was always approved under EUA for 16 and up from the start, though. It's just curious that they chose 16 and up and the other manufacturers chose 18. It gave Pfizer a proverbial beachhead.

[PeteS in CA]

...
You may be right on the J&J shot. I know Pfizer was always approved under EUA for 16 and up from the start, though. It's just curious that they chose 16 and up and the other manufacturers chose 18. It gave Pfizer a proverbial beachhead.

The difference may be due to the origins of the Pfizer vaccine, in Germany. Testing probably began there and the minimum age was 16 instead of 18. That's my guess, anyway.

As to Moderna, the FDA has done nothing wrt Moderna's request for EUA for ages 12-17. No refusal, no request for more data, no meeting of the Advisory Committee scheduled, nothing.

[PeteS in CA]

...
As to Moderna, the FDA has done nothing wrt Moderna's request for EUA for ages 12-17. No refusal, no request for more data, no meeting of the Advisory Committee scheduled, nothing.

The FDA's advisory committee finally met and gave their OK for Moderna boosters on the same very limited basis as for Pfizer, https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/10/15/fda-panel-approves-moderna-booster-for-people-65-and-older-and-high-risk-adults-n1524119 .

[mountaineer]

They don't need masks, either.

https://twitter.com/NeverSleever/status/1450866666766839813

[Right_in_Virginia]