Whistleblowers, Sources & Discernment

[JonC]

On a recent thread a member provided information supposedly given by a former Pfizer employee about the covid vaccine ingredients. https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/tiny-heavy-metal-baby.122232/

The employee, Karen Kingston, was a sales representative for Pfizer. She worked in the east Manhattan area and was apparently a good salesperson.

She worked at Pfizer from June 1996 to November 1998.

I am not discrediting Kingston (I do not even know that she offered comments).

But how can a salesperson who worked with Pfizer for 2 years 6 months in the 1990's be a whistleblower for a vaccine produced 30 years later.

How do people choose what sources to trust?

Karen Kingston - Carlsbad, California, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn

 

[Dave G]

But how can a salesperson who worked with Pfizer for 2 years 6 months in the 1990's be a whistleblower for a vaccine produced 30 years later.

Most people who work for companies hear and witness truths that the general public will never find out about...
Especially with regard to products and programs that are in long-term development.

As long as their employees are either onboard with the company's objectives, committed to following other forms of discretion, or are sworn to secrecy through legal documents that protect the company's internal secrets, then much of what goes on behind the scenes will seem like a shock to those that are only used to seeing and hearing what's been prepared by the company per their own public relations, Jon.

For example, I am sworn to forms of confidentiality when it comes to what we manufacture at my plant as part of my employment with them;
In addition to that, in order to obey the Lord, I would not reveal the intricacies of how the place is run or what is in development ( or that we are working on contractually, month-to-month ) to those outside of it.

The same was true, if not stricter, when I was under the UCMJ working for the United States Navy in aviation...where I would never reveal the internal workings of it to someone outside of it, unless of course it was a matter of public knowledge already.

 

[Dave G]

How do people choose what sources to trust?

They go with their consciences, I suppose, and with whatever has the most convincing evidence for or against a given situation, in their eyes.

Speaking for myself and knowing human nature as the Bible teaches it,
I'm already well-aware of what goes on in the business and political world without even needing to know every detail of it.
I see some of it playing out in the media outlets, and I see the back-and-forth of "suit and counter-suit" that goes on in many arenas;

I've watched over the years as companies buy each other out to corner market share on a particular product,
and I've watched as contracts for important and lucrative projects were reversed or carried out in favor of "keeping things in house" or for political reasons.

I also know that the Lord Himself sees far more than I do, and knows every bit of wrongdoing that happens out of the public eye...much more than anyone would ever suspect.

 

[JonC]

Most people who work for companies hear and witness truths that the general public will never find out about...
Especially with regard to products and programs that are in long-term development.

As long as their employees are either onboard with the company's objectives, committed to following other forms of discretion, or are sworn to secrecy through legal documents that protect the company's internal secrets, then much of what goes on behind the scenes will seem like a shock to those that are only used to seeing and hearing what's been prepared by the company per their own public relations, Jon.

For example, I am sworn to forms of confidentiality when it comes to what we manufacture at my plant as part of my employment with them;
In addition to that, in order to obey the Lord, I would not reveal the intricacies of how the place is run or what is in development ( or that we are working on contractually, month-to-month ) ) to those outside of it.

The same was true, if not stricter, when I was under the UCMJ working for the United States Navy in aviation...where I would never reveal the internal workings of it to someone outside of it, unless of course it was a matter of public knowledge already.

I agree with whistleblowers. But at the same time they have to have both a knowledge of and access to the information. And they should be scrutinized (not dismissed but also not blindly accepted).

In the 90's any woman could say she was sexually harassed and would be considered a victim without any true investigation (in the Army). I know of men who lost assignments or were moved based on assumptions of guilt.

This is especially true when the whistleblower is no longer employed (has nothing at stake but may have ill feelings towards a previous employer).

In the case of the former Pfizer employee I do not think she counts as a whistleblower.

She was employed as a sales representative for 2 1/2 years and this was over 22 years ago. She is not in a position to be a whistleblower.

 

[JonC]

They go with their consciences, I suppose, and with whatever has the most convincing evidence for or against a given situation, in their eyes.

Speaking for myself and knowing human nature as the Bible teaches it,
I'm already well-aware of what goes on in the business and political world without even needing to know every detail of it.
I see some of it playing out in the media outlets, and I see the back-and-forth of "suit and counter-suit" that goes on in many arenas;

I've watched over the years as companies buy each other out to corner market share on a particular product,
and I've watched as contracts for important and lucrative projects were reversed or carried out in favor of "keeping things in house" or for political reasons.

I also know that the Lord Himself sees far more than I do, and knows every bit of wrongdoings that happen out of the public eye..much more than anyone would ever suspect.

I disagree to an extent. From what I have seen many just go with who says what they want to hear.

Most of us are not in a position to weigh competing medical data (and really, with the covid vacvibe, there isn't any competing data....just competing conclusions).

I believe Biblical principles apply (principles concerning elders, experience, and study). I guess you could say this, even if people disagree, demands discernment.

 

[Dave G]

I agree with whistleblowers. But at the same time they have to have both a knowledge of and access to the information.

Jon,
Don't you know how the game is played in three dimensions?

Someone does the right thing after suffering their consciences for as long as they can about a situation, and when the company they worked for succeeds at finally getting their product or program accepted and "hits the big time:", it invariably falls on the little guy to be the scapegoat...

and the program rolls on regardless of who stands against it or what comes out in the press.

And they should be scrutinized (not dismissed but also not blindly accepted).

I think you and I both know that the "little guy" will probably never get their day in court until the Judgment, when everything that was in the wash comes out.

Scrutiny or not, the "deck is stacked" against those who tell the truth about a given situation...
Unless it is all revealed for a purpose.

In the 90's any woman could say she was sexually harassed and would be considered a victim without any true investigation (in the Army). I know of men who lost assignments or were moved based on assumptions of guilt.

Yes, I admit that sometimes both ends can even be played against the middle...
Which, to me, is just as wrong as the honest people suffering for trying to do the right thing and stop something that should have never been allowed to start.

 

[Dave G]

his is especially true when the whistleblower is no longer employed (has nothing at stake but may have ill feelings towards a previous employer).

In the case of the former Pfizer employee I do not think she counts as a whistleblower.

She was employed as a sales representative for 2 1/2 years and this was over 22 years ago. She is not in a position to be a whistleblower.

But she may very well be in a position to have her storied heard, simply because of what I related to you in my earlier posts above.

I disagree to an extent. From what I have seen many just go with who says what they want to hear.

It's not like I'm not factoring that in either, which I should have made myself more clear on.
IMO, many people who hear or read things on news sources are not very discerning, and simply go along with what "seems to be right" or what the popular story is, without checking things out for themselves.

I believe Biblical principles apply (principles concerning elders, experience, and study). I guess you could say this, even if people disagree, demands discernment.

Agreed.

 

[JonC]

But she may very well be in a position to have her storied heard, simply because of what I related to you in my earlier posts above.

It's not like I'm not factoring that in either, which I should have made myself more clear on.
IMO, many people who hear things on news sources are not very discerning, and simply go along with what "seems to be right" or what the popular story is, without checking things out for themselves.

Agreed.

I do not think she should be heard simply because it is impossible for her to know.

She left Pfizer before Pfizer was even working with mRNA vaccines. She left in 1998. Pfizer did not actually develop the vaccine (it was developed by a German company called BioNTech). And she had nothing to do with vacvine development (she was a sales representative for Pfizer until December 1998).

 

[Dave G]

She left Pfizer before Pfizer was even working with mRNA vaccines. She left in 1998. Pfizer did not actually develop the vaccine (it was developed by a German company called BioNTech). And she had nothing to do with vacvine development (she was a sales representative for Pfizer until December 1998).

Jon,
I've worked for a company that I intimately know how they treat business opportunities and the people involved, regardless of which project they are currently working on.

Those habits and dealings overshadow specific projects and product lines, and carry over into how they treat employees, situations and subcontractors historically.
Simply not knowing about the specifics of a given project, does not rule out a person as being a material witness to wrongdoing over a company's lifetime of conducting business.

For example,
If I told you half the things that went on during a recent project at my plant, I would most likely be not only immediately fired, I would be set up to take a fall...and a very hard one.
But that's not the main reason that I keep my mouth shut.

The biggest reason that I say nothing, is because the Lord tells me that "vengeance is mine, I will repay", and that ultimately, it is His decision and right to take action against the things that I see going on, not mine.

 

[Reynolds]

On a recent thread a member provided information supposedly given by a former Pfizer employee about the covid vaccine ingredients. https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/tiny-heavy-metal-baby.122232/

The employee, Karen Kingston, was a sales representative for Pfizer. She worked in the east Manhattan area and was apparently a good salesperson.

She worked at Pfizer from June 1996 to November 1998.

I am not discrediting Kingston (I do not even know that she offered comments).

But how can a salesperson who worked with Pfizer for 2 years 6 months in the 1990's be a whistleblower for a vaccine produced 30 years later.

How do people choose what sources to trust?

Karen Kingston - Carlsbad, California, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn

As much as you support the vax, I am surprised you have not gotten 4 or 5 doses.

 

[JonC]

Jon,
I've worked for a company that I intimately know how they treat business opportunities and the people involved, regardless of which project they are currently working on.

Those habits and dealings overshadow specific projects and product lines, and carry over into how they treat employees, situations and subcontractors historically.
Simply not knowing about the specifics of a given project, does not rule out a person as being a material witness to wrongdoing over a company's lifetime of conducting business.

For example,
If I told you half the things that went on during a recent project at my plant, I would most likely be not only immediately fired, I would be set up to take a fall...and a very hard one...
but that's not the main reason that I keep my mouth shut.

The real reason that I say nothing, is because the Lord tells me that "vengeance is mine, I will repay", and that ultimately, it is His decision and right to take action against the things that I see going on, not mine.

I agree you could provide information about how the employment operated when you were employed there.

I disagree that a sales representative that ended her employment with Pfizer in December 1998 can provide real information about the ingredients in Pfizer's covid vaccine.

 

[JonC]

As much as you support the vax, I am surprised you have not gotten 4 or 5 doses.

I do not support or unsupported vacvines. I believe it is a personal health decisions. I did get vaccinated.


This is what O am talking about (you tell me what you think):

A former Pfizer employee is a whistleblower and provides information about covid vaccine ingredients Pfizer does not want you to know.

Sounds like news. Sounds important. But what is not said?

The employee worked for Pfizer from June 1996 to December 1998. The employee never worked on or with vaccines. She was a sales representative.

Now it sounds like misinformation.

Misinformation is an attempt to trick people into making a decision. Here it is the anti-covid-vax crowd but it could very well go the other way.

It is wrong either way (it is trying to take away our choice via manuplation).

 

[Dave G]

I disagree that a sales representative that ended her employment with Pfizer in December 1998 can provide real information about the ingredients in Pfizer's covid vaccine.

That wasn't my point.
Please re-read my posts, and I think you may see it.

If not, I'll try and make it more clear:

A person can know things about a company that overshadows specific projects and programs, and IMO that person should be treated as a material witness to wrongdoing, of any kind.
However, to rightly judge anything, more than one witness should be available.

We'll see what happens.

 

[JonC]

That wasn't my point.
Please re-read my posts, and I think you may see it.

If not, I'll try and make it more clear:

A person can know things about a company that overshadows specific projects and programs, and IMO that person should be treated as a material witness to wrongdoing, of any kind.
However, to rightly judge anything, more than one witness should be available.

We'll see what happens.

I agree insofar as company practices, provided the person is also investigated.

That said, I do not agree this applies to Karen Kingston. She is talking about ingredients in a vaccine produced 24 years after she left the company.

I can tell you Army policies from 2014, but they have changed by now. I mean, we are talking about her leaving there before many of the scientists who worked on the vaccine were in 1st grade!

 

[Dave G]

She is talking about ingredients in a vaccine produced 24 years after she left the company.

I used to know someone who worked for a large pharmaceutical company, and I can tell you that the pamphlets and sales documentation was not geared to the general public...it was geared towards informing the doctors, who then prescribed those products to the general public.

Take vitamins, for example...
Very few manufacturers change what historically works in the way of binders and so forth, unless it's profitable or expedient that they do so.
As someone in sales, she may very well know what is and was contained in various "suspensions" that are still used by the company she once worked for, Jon.

Also I think there's something you may be overlooking...
"Pro-Vax" or "Anti-Vax", illnesses and people wanting to preserve their lives in the face of them all, presents a big business opportunity for certain companies.
Some stand to make huge profits if they can get their products mandated or otherwise purchased by large numbers of people who rely on them.

Take razor blades, for example, specifically the history of the double-edge blade and holders that were produced in the early to late 1900's...
Look into the business dealings of the companies involved, how much they tried to protect their territory and patents, and how much real money was made in the market.

It's all a very complex "playground" that is, as I see it, built on one thing...
Taking advantage of people who are scared ( in this case ), to make money off them.

Anyone and anything that stands in the way of that is going to fail, outside of a miracle of justice happening.

Is she telling the truth?
Again, I think we'll see, sooner or later.

 

[JonC]

I used to know someone who worked for a large pharmaceutical company, and I can tell you that the pamphlets and sales documentation was not geared to the general public...it was geared towards informing the doctors, who then prescribed those products to the general public.

As someone in sales, she may very well know what is and was contained in various "suspensions" that are used by the company she once worked for, Jon.


Take vitamins, for example...
Very few manufacturers change what historically works in the way of binders and so forth, unless it's profitable or expedient that they do so.

Also I think there's something you may be overlooking...
"Pro-Vax" or "Anti-Vax", illnesses and people wanting to preserve their lives in the face of them all, presents a big business opportunity for certain companies.
Some stand to make huge profits if they can get their products mandated or otherwise purchased by large numbers of people who rely on them.

Take razor blades for example, specifically the history of the double-edge blade and holders that were produced in the early to late 1900's.
Look into the business dealings of the companies involved, how much they tried to protect their territory and patents, and how much real money was made in the market.

It's all a very complex "playground" that is, as I see it, built on one thing...
Taking advantage of people who are scared ( in this case ), to make money off them.

Anyone and anything that stands in the way of that is going to fail, outside of a miracle of justice happening.

Is she telling the truth?
Again, we'll see, sooner or later.

She could know what was contained in suspensions back in 1998. But the Pfizer covid vaccine is a mRNA vacvine. She cannot know (I suspect you get this part).

Is she telling the truth? I doubt it is even her....she is very likely just being used by conspiracy theorists.

This has happened to several doctors already.

 

[Dave G]

She could k ow what was contained in suspensions back in 1998. But the Pfizer covid vaccine is a mRNA vacvine. She cannot know (I suspect you get this part).

Jon,
I think this is all speculation on our part, and it's probably best that we take a "wait-see".
If this any of this is true, then more witnesses may be forthcoming... similar to sexual allegation and other wrongdoing cases.

At this point I've participated in this type of thing far more than I probably should have, as it can get into all sorts of behavior that I don't care to indulge in.
I'm backing out now.

 

[JonC]

Jon,
I think this is all speculation on our part, and it's probably best that we take a "wait-see".

If this any of this is true, then more witnesses may be forthcoming, similar to sexual allegation and other wrongdoing cases.

No, I do not think there is speculation or a wait and see. It just is not logical. And nothing will come of it.

The reason I say nothing will come of thus one is it has already been proven false. We are not guessing what us going to come in terms of a vaccine - we have it now. And we know the claim is false.

So it is not going anywhere.

My intent was to look at what qualifies as a credible source.

Would an associate of Trump qualify to testify about Trumps current activities if they have not associated for 23 years? I don't think so.

People are accused of having certain ideologies because of things they said 10 years ago while in high school.

I do not believe a sales representative who left Pfiser in 1998 is any type of expert on tge ingredients contained in a vaccine developed in 2019.

 

[Dave G]

We are not guessing what us going to come in terms of a vaccine - we have it now.

Jon, as my final reply in this thread I'll have to disagree with this.

In my opinion we don't "have it" now.
What we have are a set of "vaccines" developed using a technology that has not been historically tested or used on humans on a large scale until the past year or so.
Again, I put the term in quotations and use the term loosely because to me, true vaccines use "Whole Virus" or "Protein Subunit" as their technologies, and not what amounts to gene manipulation through mRNA and DNA technologies ( viral vector and nucleic acid ).

Regardless, many call them vaccines and would disagree with me, and I have to accept what is.

Still, we, as a race and in my own opinion, know little to nothing of even the mid-term effects of using these types of biotechnologies,
and just because it "looks good" in the short term, does not mean it's the best thing since sliced bread and butter.

My belief is that scientists simply do not know what it is that they are playing with when it comes to gene therapy and other related biotechnologies, and it seems to me that they are bound and determined to discover their mistakes the hard way.

And we know the claim is false.

So it is not going anywhere.

My intent was to look at what qualifies as a credible source.

I suspect, based on the overwhelming majority of comments that I'm seeing in the news, in media and in forums like this one,
that you may very well be right, Jon;

She and anyone else who stands in the way of this "sure thing" will be ultimately rolled over in the process, and things will keep right on going...
with people like her simply being a "bump in the road".
Truth or no truth, desperate people make for desperate measures, and if no one wants to hear it, no one will.

If it's one thing I've become very well-acquainted with in this world,
it's having to get used to the fact that most people seem to want to find out everything the hard way ( myself included )...
Especially after what was often looked at as a "miracle cure" turns out not to be one, and has deadly ( or even unsavory ) side-effects and long-term repercussions.

All they seem to care about is a "quick fix", so that they can get on with whatever priorities are more important.


Good afternoon to you.

 

[Wingman68]

You will be seeing many, many more whistle blowers, but the media will dance to cover it up. Look here, not there. That is why we MUST go to sources like Bitchute. Here is a Dr, actually two dr’s in this video who have been relieved of duty in Canada. If this doesn’t scare you, then you scare me.

Is Hospital Protocol Killing Covid Patients?