PUTTING THE ‘CON’ IN CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Putting the ‘Con’ in ‘Consensus’ There is no 97% consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues (Appeared in the Financial Post May 2015). It was the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, there was massive activist pressure in and on all governments to fall in lines with the ‘global warming’ agenda, to accept emission targets which was reported as “could harm our economy”. Governments worldwide, including NZ’s threw out domestic economy under electric vehicles, wind and solar farms, the economy was to be like a train wreckage

It was reported that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change debate, as it turns out that was a massive lie, it was made up. Climate Activist Bill McKibben claimed there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a ‘grave danger’. He was challenged, asked where his source of information came from, he promptly withdraw it. Barack Obama US President at the time sent out a tweet claiming ‘97% climate experts believe global warming is ‘real’ man -made and dangerous”, he was referring to a survey that did not even ask that question, he made it up

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50%) of the post 1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. (But does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, its unknown as to how many experts agree with this). And the statement, even if were true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. Both statements are inconsistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of government.

The most highly cited papers supposedly found 97% of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers show that 66% actually took no position. Of the remaining 34%, at least 33% supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. OK, so divide 33 by 34 and there you have it 97%, however 33% includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position. There are more recent surveys that shed light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

They are liars, there was no 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession are split on the issue. The Netherlands Environmental Agency published a survey of International Climate Experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, 1868 responses were received. The questions referred only to the post 1950 period. 66% agreed with IPCC that global warming had happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either  did not know or think human influence was not dominant. Again NO 97% Con(Sensus) behind the IPCC

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC. The Dutch survey that described ‘climate experts’ a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Of 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998. ¾ of the respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and and stated it cannot be predicted.”

The  IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” There are unresolved discrepancies between models, observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity, and Natural Climate variability. Its much too difficult to realistically climate model, simulate clouds. Clouds are an enormous influence in Climate Assessments, conclusions.

Lots of people get called ‘Climate Experts’ and they appear to contribute to the appearance of ‘consensus’, without necessarily even be knowledgeable about the core issues. A massive consensus by the misinformed really is NOT a Consensus.. It’s a big Fat Lie. Its worth nothing of any value. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. The Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … People I urge you to call out all these political corrupt propagandists that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington.

They laugh at you if you dare to publicly debate, discuss this Global Warming Agenda. They derail, shut people down. They even shut the real scientists down. This is not real science, this is about controlling populations worldwide into smart cities, to eat bugs and plant foods. To destroy farming communities, small businesses.This is Corporate Capture world wide, the profiteers are those that are the DAVOS Crowd. The WEF and the UN. The WEF representing the Multistakeholder Corporations. The UN with their International Rules. Like hand in glove WEF and UN official partnership agreement 13th June 2019.. The United Nations implements their one world global governance rules and regulations worldwide to be adopted by UN State’s (Includes New Zealand) and the Corporations are deployed worldwide to accelerate the Global One World Governance Agenda to enslave populations worldwide.  UN Agenda 2030. Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age.

Those political cronies that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington with their political policing are determining that the people have no voice to call them out on their corruption and lies. I urge you do not remain silent stand up, the more you speak up publically the easier it gets. It may seem uncomfortable, you may feel nervous at first but the more you do this, the more courage you get, the more empowered you are. Remember Silence is the CON in CONSENT.

God Save New Zealand.

Link:  https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

 

 

...

Propaganda Machine Blog Posts View all Categories

BE VERY FEARFUL- DEMAND VACCINES, IMMUNIZATIONS AS YOU RIGHT. ( IA: 2030 ) UN AGENDA 2030 INTRODUCED IN 2015

https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/strategies/global-vaccine-action-plan
Global Vaccine Action Plan
The Global Vaccine Action plan (GVAP) was developed to help realize the vision of the Decade of Vaccines, that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine preventable diseases.

As the decade is drawing to a close, the SAGE Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) 2011-2020 review and lessons learned report, provides an overall assessment of plan’s successes and challenges. It also proposes 15 recommendations for the development, content and implementation of the next decade’s global immunization strategy
The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) ― endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly in May 2012 ― is a framework to prevent millions of deaths by 2020 through more equitable access to existing vaccines for people in all communities.
GVAP was the product of the DoV Collaboration, an unprecedented effort that brought together development, health and immunization experts and stakeholders. The leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI Alliance, UNICEF, United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and WHO, along with all partners – governments and elected officials, health professionals, academia, manufacturers, global agencies, development partners, civil society, media and the private sector – are committed to achieving the ambitious goals of the GVAP. Many more are expected to add their support in the future as the plan is translated and implemented at the country and regional levels.
https://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/10921/9789290617099_eng.pdf;jsessionid=3588ABFA01DADF7788502691C106876B?sequence=1 WORLD HEALTH ORG., (UN) REGIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLENMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL VACCINE ACTION PLAN IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC (This includes Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands) 92 page Report.
Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP). Aims of the Regional Framework for Implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan in the Western Pacific Introduction of new vaccines, immunizations

BE FEARFUL ENOUGH TO DEMAND IMMUNIZATIONS, VACCINATIONS.
In May 2012, the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly endorsed the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP), a global framework that builds on its predecessor, the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2006–2015 (GIVS). GVAP offers a broad range of strategies and activities and establishes new goals for achieving the Decade of Vaccines vision of a world in which all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine-preventable diseases.
A wide array of stakeholders was involved in the development of GVAP. The Regional Framework for Implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan in the Western Pacific has been prepared to translate strategies and activities recommended by GVAP into the context of the Western Pacific Region and to incorporate all global and regional immunization goals. By consolidating all of this information in one document, the framework aims to accelerate progress towards achievement of global and regional immunization goals and to help stakeholders better understand how to work together in implementing GVAP in the Region

Strategic Objective: All countries commit to immunization as a priority. Individuals, communities understand the value of immunization and vaccines, o much so they demand them as their right and responsibility.
Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 In May 2012, the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP) was endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly. GVAP builds on the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2006–2015 (GIVS), endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 2005, and outlines a vision in which the full benefits of immunization are extended to all people, regardless of where they are born, who they are or where they live. Developing GVAP brought together multiple stakeholders involved in immunization, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and WHO, along with all partners – governments and elected officials, health professionals, academia, vaccine manufacturers, global agencies, development partners, civil society, media and the private sector

https://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/10921/9789290617099_eng.pdf;jsessionid=3588ABFA01DADF7788502691C106876B?sequence=1

...

PFIZER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT 2019-2020

The Pfizer Inc. Political Action Committee (the “Committee”) was formed by Pfizer Inc. (the “Company”) to solicit and receive voluntary political contributions from employees and stockholders of the Company and certain subsidiaries to assist candidates for elective office. The Committee was registered with the Federal Election Commission in April 1976. During 2020 and 2019, contributions could be designated by the contributor to a specific candidate or political party for political office.

Political Contributions to US Senate Candidates, US House Candidates. State and Local Candidates and Political Parties and other PAC funds. 2019 total $ 1,310,711 2020-$1,513,439

How much money does Pfizer give to political committees?
Pfizer also sponsors a federal political action committee and is one of the nation’s most generous PAC givers. The company has so far donated more than $2.64 million to politicians and political committees during the 2019-2020 election cycle.

On November 16th 2020 our Upjohn business, which was our global, primarily off-patented branded and genetic patented business was spun off and combined with Mylan N.V to create a new global pharmacy company, Viatris Inc. Beginning in the 4th quarter of 2020, the financial results of the Upjohn business are reflected as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Following the combination, we now operate as a focused innovated biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution of biopharmaceutical products worldwide as of February 2nd 2021.

The Governance Sustainability Committee of Pfizer oversees the practices, policies, procedure of the board and its committees this includes political spending-donations to political parties

For achieving SDG, it should be noted that only one of these goals, SDG3, refers specifically to vaccines (3.b.1). However, in addition, we have also identified 7 other SDG goals strongly related to vaccines and 6 SDG goals related to vaccine, in a total of 14 vaccine-related goals in 17 SDGs. Two of these goals are related to innovation and technological development of vaccines (SDG9 and SD17). We discuss the main vaccine development challenges for achieving SDG and current technological and regulatory obstacles particularly affecting developing countries. From this perspective, we propose STI governance strategies to overcome these gaps and increase global access to vaccines, focusing on institutional and regulatory perspectives, including intellectual property and ethics. Policy recommendations for vaccine funding and incentives for innovation, development, and production are made. Finally, we emphasize the enormous potential role that access to innovative vaccines can play on global sustainability (Milstien et al. 2007; Possas et al. 2015), benefiting particularly the poorest countries in a global context permeated by sharp social inequalities.

The Governance & Sustainability Committee Charter is available on Pfizer website at-

https://investors.pfizer.com/corporate-governanceboard-committees-and-charters/default.aspx

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000078003/e170b925-2933-4572-8e4e-6490c4d4237c.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120800/

...

REFERENCING THE GOVERNMENT’S TRAFFIC LIGHT RESPONSE FOR COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS

The new traffic light system revealed by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Friday will see freedoms restored to fully vaccinated New Zealanders
And those who haven’t received two shots of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine will be largely excluded from eating at restaurants, attending concerts and festivals, and even getting a hair cut.
In other words, those who remain unvaccinated will experience a limited version of daily life in society. THIS IS MORE THAN A WARNING ITS AN EXTREME THREAT
“If you want summer, if you want to go to bars and restaurants, get vaccinated,” Ardern said. “If you want to get a hair cut, get vaccinated. If you want to go to a concert or a festival, get vaccinated.

If you want to go to a gym or sports event, get vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, there will be everyday things you miss out on.”
RED = Working from home encouraged. Those vaccinated can visit restaurants attends events with same limits as this on level 2. Limit gatherings limiting 10 people
ORANGE- Close to normal life for vaccinated. But is not because they cannot spends time with their unvaccinated friends at restaurants. Stricter gathering limits, no gyms or hairdressers
GREEN- Essentially normal life for vaccinated, retail hospitality all open no limits. But must be vaccinated. Those venues that don’t use vax certificates they have a limit of 2 customers
As the Government openly publicaly say they are targeting Maori and Pacifika. The Government playing its old game of racist divide, the have’s and have nots.
Divide the nations, let them destroy each other. Power play, control over all peoples. Everyone loses their freedom, compliant or not. This smells of Nazi Germany and the overbearing evilness of a Chinese Communist Regime.

This is a psychological technique that’s being used. ‘Registered clinical psychologist Dr Sarb Johal says it’s important to continue to address the concerns of people in our social circles who are unsure about getting vaccinated:
“Don’t give up on them.” In other words, even if you mentally abuse them, manipulate them and neglect them, torture their minds. Just don’t give up, keep pushing. Do the governments work for them.
This is a bullying tactic, emotionally bullying, and when a number of family members do this its called narcist. A narcist tactic to beat and bully individuals into submission, make them feel guilty, and shame them.
As this psychologist said People roll up their sleeves when they realise they have limits placed on their daily lives. “We have a few weeks, these is going to be critical”
THE FOX SAID TO THE HENS “ITS OK TO COME OUT NOW”

UN Agenda 2030 states that all global targets, there are 169 global targets and 17 SDG’s, Global development Goals. 17 of 18 refer to Climate Alarmism.
14 of 17 Global Strategy for Vaccines. Decade of Vaccines. Leave No-one behind. Everyone, everywhere at every age (UN Global Strategy of Vaccines 2011-2019)
UN Agenda 2030 states that all global targets are aspirational, with a scale or a traffic light system, accompanied by a checklist. How to monitor and assess progress, a global indicator, one that has no agreed methodology.
Thus the UN Environment, with the support from the OECH and other partner institutions, is the custodian agency responsible for developing a methodology that is universally applicable by all countries. (Using a traffic light response)
Indicating progress or not, preferences, demands etc., to accelerate UN Agenda 2030. A traffic light system for policy coherence for UN Agenda 2030 17 SDG’s and the 169 Targets
Resolution as to UN Agenda 2030-Transforming our World. Each Government sets its own targets guided by these global goals.
Benchmarking of the UN Agenda 2030 SDG’s identify qualitive intersections between the AHI Indicators and the SDG Indicators,
AHI INDICATORS -‘Asset Health Indicators’. January 2011 the World Economic Forum . It’s complex. A measurement of a condition of an asset.

The interactions are coloured based on a traffic light system. (Assessment System). Each are assigned a score between zero and three. Zero = Red, 1 = Orange, 2 = yellow (amber) and Green = 3.
In January 2011 the World Economic Forum reported the emergence of a ’New Asset Class’. Data collected on who we are, who we know, where we are, where we have been and where we plan to go.
Mining and analysing this data thus giving the ability to understand, predict where humans focus their attention and activity at the individual, group, country, global level.
This generating a new wave opportunity for economic, societal creation.
The WEF report documents the types and value of personal data collected as being vast. Profiles, demographic data, medical records, bank accounts, employment data, including our likes and dislikes and purchase history.

Our web searches and sites visited. Our tweets, emails, phone calls, photo’s, video’s as well as the coordinates of our real world locations. The list is vast and extremely variable and continues to grow.

Corporations, large companies, businesses use this data to support service and delivery of their business for their investors that can be monetised. Governments employ personal data to provide critical public services more effectively.
Researchers accelerate the development of new drugs and treatment protocols using this emergence of Asset Class system, that will spur a host of new services and applications. This is called the new ‘Oil’ a valuable resource for the 21st century. (Equals online investors)
This is known as an emergence of a new asset class touching all aspects of society. It’s core, personal data represents post- industrial opportunity. Its unprecedented complexity, velocity and has global reach.

A communications infrastructure, a personal data opportunity that will emerge in a world, where nearly everyone and everything is connected in real time, as the global elite, the Multistakeholder Capitalist wealthy greedy corporations, Bigg Tech, Big Pharm and Bayer-Monsanto will emerge in a global Eco political system, post the destruction of the Free-market Economy
For individuals, populations this will require a new way of thinking, behaving, hence we have behaviour modification in our midst, controlling people into compliance, obedience.
Re-engineering your life from the old normal to the mew normal to reward the wealthiest, elitist, leftist, socialist, Marxist, communist, most power hungry in this world today.
Green Traffic Light for instance =is given between the intersection of UN Agenda 2030/SDG indication 1.4. access to basic services for households.
Amber could denote concepts measured by Asset Health for social trust in business and government. (A measurement accumulated by the personal data collected about individuals, groups etc.,)
The Traffic Light System is a benchmark based on comparison between Asset Health domains and indicators at to UN Agenda 2030 SDG’s, based on judgements..
In some cases, SDGs fit into more than one AHI domain, and so were allocated into more than one domain. More than one indicator, traffic light colour.
With the talk of banks introducing a cashless society, which is clearly on the books. The Consumers Commissioner March 2009 documented on the WEF Report “Personal data is the new ‘Oil’ of the internet and the new currency of the digital world”
The World Economic Forum document states “Indeed, rethinking the central importance of the individual is fundamental to the transformational nature of this opportunity, this will spur solutions and insights”

As personal data increasingly becomes a critical course of innovation and value, business boundaries are being redrawn. Profit and Personal Data for large Multistakeholder Capitalist Corporations and large businesses.

The WEF back in 2009 reported that tensions were rising about the misuse of data, general public were becoming uneasy ‘about what they know about us’. There are fundamental questions about privacy, property, global governance, human rights.
However the WEF states “we cannot just hit the pause button” and let these issues sort themselves. “Building this legal, cultural, technological and economic infrastructure enabling the development of this personal data eco-system is vitally important.”
“It is in this context that the World Economic Forum launched a project entitled “Rethinking Personal Data” in 2010.
The intent of this multiyear project is to bring together a diverse set of stakeholders – private companies, public sector representatives, end user privacy and rights groups, academics and topic experts.

The aim is to deepen the collective understanding of how a principled, collaborative and balanced personal data ecosystem can evolve.
NZ Parliament has introduced the ‘Digital Identity Trust Framework Bill 2021 a few days ago’, and introduced the ‘Traffic Lights Response’ which relates to UN Agenda 2030.
On the 13th June 2019, the UN and the WEF signed an official partnership agreement to accelerate UN Agenda 2030. The WEF takeover of the UN was strongly condemned as a Global Public-Private Governance of the World

FIAN INTERNATIONAL (For the right to food and nutrition) stated that hundreds of CSO’s reiterate condemnation of the partnership[ between the corporate world with the UN. They called on the UN Secretary General to end it.
The agreement grants transnational corporations preferential access to the UN System at the expense of UN Member States and public interest actors.
That this partnership undermines the mandate of the UN as well as its independence. “This WEF and UN agreement formalises an extremely disturbing corporate capture of the UN.
It moves the world dangerously towards a privatised, undemocratic global governance”. Corporate influence has been long wielded in the UN System, however under the terms of 2019 of the UN-WEF partnership, the UN will be permanently associated with transnational corporations.
In the long term it will allow the WEF to be advisors to a One World Governance. Corporations in the global industrial food chain alone destroy 75 billion tons of topsoil annually, are responsible for the loss of 7.5 million hectares of forests. Leaves 3.9 billion unfed malnourished people.
The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse Human Rights and personal property rights.

In 2019, Ardern speaking at the WEF Davos Meeting stated “While the government’s plans to move away from traditional methods of measuring growth and development are in keeping with a global push for a more purposeful capitalism, new metrics may be difficult to quantify and could take years to refine.
2019 well a couple of years and we are there. 2021.Her National State of Happiness Report. ..UN Agenda 2030 14 out of 17 global development goals -Here we are living the ‘UN Global Strategy for Vaccines 2011-2019, Leave No-one Behind. Everyone, everywhere at every age. 2020-2030 The Decade of Vaccines. Forget the sheep enter the lions.
UN Agenda 2030, leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age. Accelerate UN Agenda 2030 calculations. Traffic Light Response. And Ardern’s Zero Carbons Eco-politics.
Controlling, re-engineering the minds of everyone in the world. Ardern and her political cronies destroying, being traitors to all New Zealanders in favour of a Private-Public One World Governance.

That is destroying our country, as we all sit on the edge of a suicidal cliff, the edge of a precipice. THIS IS CONTROL, COMPLAINCE, SLAVERY, DICTATORSHIP, COMMUNISM. USING THE TRAFFIC LIGHT RESPONSE
https://www.fian.org/en/press-release/article/wef-takeover-of-un-strongly-condemned-2273
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf
https://www.sdg16hub.org/system/files/2019-05/The-Role-of-Multi-Stakeholder-Partnerships-in-Implementing-the-2030-Agenda-1-1.pdf

Blog Mini Series on MSPs – 3

...

PFIZERS STATE CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

PFIZER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS REPORT
The Pfizer political action committee, Pfizer PAC, is a nonpartisan organization that provides opportunities for employees to participate in the American political process. The Pfizer PAC is an employee-run organization with a steering committee made up of Pfizer employees from around the country. When choosing to make a contribution to a candidate, the Pfizer PAC considers candidates’ views on issues that impact Pfizer and its employees as well as the presence of Pfizer facilities or employees in the candidate’s district or state. The PAC steering committee reviews and approves all recommendations for PAC contributions on a monthly basis.

Pfizer’s procedure that limits Pfizer colleagues’ campaign and election activities during working hours also restricts the use of Pfizer resources to support federal and state candidates, political parties and political committees.

PFIZER PAC Leading the Conversation. What is a PAC? PAC stands for Political Action Committee. A political action committee is a government-regulated organization that anyone can form to raise money for political campaign donations. PACs are formed by individuals, non-profits, and even many major corporations. How Does P izer PAC Work? The Pfizer political action committee, Pfizer PAC, is a nonpartisan organization that provides opportunities for employees to participate in the American political process.

The Pfizer PAC is an employee-run organization with a Steering Committee made up of Pfizer employees from different divisions of the company. All corporate PACs are funded by voluntary employee contributions. Pfizer PAC is no different; it relies on the participation of Pfizer colleagues. Who Receives Pfizer PAC Contributions? Pfizer PAC is nonpartisan. It supports Democrats and Republicans who support policies that impact our purpose: Breakthroughs that change patients’ lives. From January 2019 through December 2020, Pfizer PAC supported 950 candidates. When choosing to make a contribution to a candidate, our Government Relations colleagues consider candidates’ views and voting record on policy issues that impact patient access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines as well as the impact on our employees and Pfizer facilities in the candidate’s district or state. A complete list of Pfizer PAC and state corporate political contributions for January 2019 – December 2020 is included in this report.

...