Is It Just Another Racket?
Can we trust Big Pharma?
Big Pharma has a bad reputation.
These attributes of Big Pharma will become apparent as you read on.
- "Developing drugs is not as expensive as they say.
Big Pharma exaggerates the costs of R&D of new medicines to justify their high pricing, and often categorise ‘opportunity costs’ and non-research activities, such as the cost of buying another company, as R&D costs. While Big Pharma often says it costs US$2-3 billion to develop a new drug, other credible estimates are at least 10 times lower – in the $100-200 million range.
- You’re paying twice for your medicines.
Corporations free-ride off public, taxpayer-funded research at government and university laboratories, from which most new drugs and health technologies originate. They get tax credits and other financial incentives to ‘de-risk’ their research investments, and privatise and patent the resulting products. Then they charge high prices to taxpayers and governments.
- The pharma industry is poor at innovation.
About two-thirds of the new drugs that arrive on the market are no better than what we already have. Pharma corporations put more effort into developing so-called ‘me-too drugs’ than finding true therapeutic breakthroughs.
- Patents are extended – over and over – to prolong monopolies.
A notorious pharma tactic is patent ‘evergreening’, where corporations file for additional patents on small changes to existing drugs, thereby lengthening their monopoly and blocking affordable generic products.
- Pharma bullies developing countries for going against their corporate interests.
Time and again, Big Pharma uses pressure tactics or oppressive legal actions against low- and middle-income countries like India, South Africa, Thailand, Brazil, Colombia and Malaysia for prioritising people’s health over pharma’s interests. Together with some wealthy countries, pharma tries hard to influence international trade rules to benefit themselves, even if it hurts public health.
- Pharma pockets more than they re-invest.
Big Pharma says they need huge profits so they can pay for R&D and innovation. But in reality, they spend more on share buybacks to boost their own stock prices, and on sales and marketing, than on R&D."
Let's continue on with the subscription business model which I'm sure readers who buy apps are familiar with.
Goldman Sachs recently asked of the biotechs:
‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’
To quote Salveen Richter, a Wall Street Analyst at Goldman Sachs.
“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing."
“While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”
In other words, there's more money in keeping chronic patients going on old drugs than in curing them on the new.
Pfizer started Covid-19 without a solution. It found one in Germany. Government promoted it to a near monopoly exempt from liability. It's still the only fully approved Covid-19 vaccine but the version that got approved isn't available. The sheep haven't cottoned on.
And, then came the boosters, and the debate over what is the definition of fully vaccinated for the purpose of punishing the control group, the unvaccinated.
And, now they're talking up annual vaccinations.
So let's start this Covid-19 story with the premise that Big Pharma, that is to say Pfizer, is acting in the interests of its shareholders.
That those shareholders are plutocrats and technocrats, who are too far removed from the sheep to care about them.
That those shareholders (and their companies and trusts) are government donors because they want something in return.
If you put yourself in Pfizer's shoes, its Covid-19 response is just business as usual.
Can we trust Neoliberal governments?
Neoliberal governments have a well deserved bad reputation.
Read my blog for more on this. Again, there are thousands of articles on the inter-web to choose from.
So let's start this Covid-19 story with the premise that neoliberal governments act in the interests of their donors.
To quote Aaron Siri:
"The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public."
"It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021). Taking the FDA at its word, it conducted an intense, robust, thorough, and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure. While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer's documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public."
"The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won't let you see the data supporting its safety/efficacy. Who does the government work for?"
The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of, among other things, vaccines. It's independent, and driven by science. Nevertheless, the FDA tweeted on 21 August that:
"You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."
It was referring to the repurposed horse wormer, Ivermectin.
Is coercive vaccination right?
The world has a raft of individual protections in place. They are our collective response to the most awful events in human history.
Current coercive vaccination protocols violate the Nuremberg Code, UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (art.6), the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 7), and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 3).
Alternatives to Pfizer are denied to the unvaccinated.
Covid-19 is transmitted by the vaccinated as well as the unvaccinated.
Current vaccination practice is unethical, and always will be.
Where did the virus come from?
Let's start at the beginning.
Did Covid-19 originate in a Wuhan wet market or did it escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology which operates the world's largest research programme on bat-borne corona-viruses?
If you remember, we were told that covid-19 started in a Wuhan wet market.
Bats carrying Sars-CoV-2-like viruses live nowhere near Wuhan. They must have been blown off course.
The evidence is now in that scientists had gone to Yunnan and Laos and then transported bat virus samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
We may never know exactly what happened but it didn't start in a Wuhan wet market. That's not what happened.
When were BioNTech plans made public?
BioNTech is the German company that developed the vaccine that Pfizer sells.
BioNTech contacted the German public regulatory agency for vaccines in February 2020 that it intended to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic in March.
In December, the FDA authorised BioNTech's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for emergency use. Pfizer and BioNTech were in a position to deliver first doses immediately.
Another neoliberal monopoly
When neoliberals sort out 'free' markets, monopoly (or oligopoly) is more often than not the outcome.
Nothing is off limits. Water, land, medicines. Everything that can be privatised for profit, is. Anything that can be patented, is.
So here we go again. Pfizer has become, in the West, a near monopoly supplier of covid-19 vaccines.
In this case of covid-19, Big Pharma is Pfizer. None of the others have ever brought a product to market and that includes BioNTech, the developer of Pfizer's vaccine.
One again, we observe why it's important for multinationals, like Pfizer, to 'buy' government support.
Government determines which businesses get access to monopoly profits, which businesses get freedom from liability and which businesses stay in business.
Government determines who is a parasite, and who is a host. A parasite is certainly a plutocrat and very probably a technocrat. The sheep are hosting many parasites if you're wondering why you're struggling.
There's little competition in neoliberal 'free' markets. Most of the competition is between the parasites for the last drop of your income.
Why is government flogging the unvaccinated?
The unvaccinated are being compared to the vaccinated. They are the control group.
They can't be seen to be doing better than the vaccinated. That would be a disastrous outcome for Pfizer, and the governments that have spent billions on one solution.
The unvaccinated have to be vilified and punished. But most of all they need to be denied access to safe antiviral drugs that work. Like Ivermectin.
Merck's patent on Ivermectin has run out. It can't make any money out of Ivermectin which is why it's bringing a Covid-19 product to the FDA for approval. Ivermectin tablets cost 6 cents each through the WHO.
Pfizer is flogging its product before it comes to an inglorious end. At some point the booster story will lose traction. At some point, the damage will be toted up and the truth will be revealed.
Gibraltar is the most vaccinated place on earth with 100% of the population vaccinated, and 40% boosted. This is the latest.
And, here is our neighbour, New Zealand. Boosters aren't add-ons. They're just more of the same thing that's not working as advertised.
Another Giant that can't Create
It has a parasites mentality. It obtains the legal protection of patents, and then squeezes every dollar of profit out of the patent.
The FDA's approval was given to BioNTech, the German developer of the so-called "Pfizer" vaccine. Pfizer has a partnership agreement with BioNTech, as does the Chinese company, Fosun Pharma.
BioNTech created the vaccine. Pfizer and Fosun commercialised it.
The Role of Government.
The neoliberal mantra for the benefit of the sheep is that government is a useless entity that wastes tax payers's money. Leave everything to the 'free' market and it will provide.
Let's be clear. Government does not use tax revenue to fund its spending. It creates money out of thin air when it spends, and it destroys tax money immediately on receipt.
Let's follow the money trail.
Medical research can be an expensive drain on profits if nothing profitable eventuates. It may not suit shareholders who have a low appetite for risk. Research projects need careful evaluation because business is income constrained. It has to live within its income.
But one entity's spending isn't constrained by its income. That entity creates money out of thin air when it spends. That entity is the perfect candidate to fund risky research. That entity is the currency issuing government.
In theory, government's not driven by profit. It's driven by voter aspirations.
In practice, government is more likely to be driven by donor aspirations with Big Pharma arguably the largest donor.
And so it is with BioNTech. It was heavily funded by the German government which identified biotechnology as commercially promising.
In summary, the German government took the risk out, BioNTech created the vaccine and Pfizer commercialised it with assistance from the US government. The latter two are known masters of subterfuge.
Finally, the obvious purchaser is an entity that creates money out of thin air. And, so it is, with governments buying large amounts of vaccine.
It's not clear where the foreign exchange risk lies but you'd have to think that the US is buying in US dollars which it creates out of thin air.
Germany is in an interesting position. It funded the vaccine, and it's negotiating purchase as a member of the European Union.
Shareholders and the Third World
Pfizer vaccination rates in the third world are miniscule. Dividends aren't being sacrificed to benefit the poor.
Covid in Third World Countries
Covid isn't necessarily a disaster in the Third World. Some countries have been using alternative drugs with great success.
Covid in the Developed World
Vaccination doesn't prevent transmission, and doesn't remain effective for long periods. Boosters are required.
Myocarditis is a widely-reported and officially acknowledged adverse effect of the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).
As an aside, my cardiac specialist, a Professor of considerable repute, has been vaccinated with AstraZeneca, acknowledging that mRNA vaccines like Pfizer produce adverse cardiac reactions.
What's in a Pfizer purchase agreement?
Pfizer's confidential contracts with some governments are apparently leaked.
These are some excerpts from the linked article.
"if there are any laws or regulations in your country under which Pfizer could be prosecuted, you agree to change the law or regulation to close that off."
Pfizer does not allow government to escape their contract which "states that even if a drug will be found to treat COVID-19, the contract cannot be voided."
"Purchaser acknowledges…the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."
"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses…"
The state must defend Pfizer: "(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification… Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defence of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)".
None of those contract conditions seem out of place, if you're a monopoly supplier chasing profits, and caring nought for the sheep.
New Pfizer Drug Paxlovid and Ivermectin
Dr. John Campbell is talking on YouTube about the new Pfizer drug Paxlovid and Merck's Ivermectin here.
Paxlovid works very similarly to Ivermectin which is banned in my country, and many others. Paxlovid is or will be patented. Ivermectin is out of patent.
Paxlovid will be a big earner. It will be approved for emergency use freeing Pfizer of liability.
Merck's Ivermectin is a known safe anti-viral drug selling for 6 cents a tablet.
Merck’s answer is a new 'miracle' pill called Molnupiravir. It certainly won't be available through WHO for 6 cents a tablet.
"...molnupiravir is intriguing and a testament to government-funded innovation. Molnupiravir, also known as EIDD-2801 or MK-4482, came out of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory (DRIVE), a not-for-profit LLC owned by Emory University."
From this site:
"Mercks' molnupiravir, for instance, is seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA and "Merck will receive approximately $1.2 billion to supply approximately 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir to the United States government.""
All these shenanigans are about maximising profits.
So how about this quote from Campbell?
"No one’s saying that the information [about ivermectin’s efficacy] has been deliberately hidden away while millions of people have died".
Of course, that's exactly what's happened.
So imagine that the unvaccinated control group swallowed Ivermectin at 6 cents a pop and the vaccinated swallowed pfizer at $60 a pop. That was never going to happen. The unvaccinated had to be punished. They had to be dissuaded.
Africa should be a candidate for a Covid-19 pandemic because it can't afford vaccines. But, it's remarkably free of Covid-19.
This study set out to evaluate the impact of ivermectin interventions for onchocerciasis (river blindness) on the morbidity, mortality, recovery, and fatality rates caused by COVID-19.
It concluded that:
"The community-directed onchocerciasis treatment with ivermectin (aka Mectizan Program)* is the most reasonable explanation for the decrease in morbidity and fatality rate in Africa. In areas where ivermectin is distributed to and used by the entire population, it leads to a significant reduction in mortality."*
Indian State, Uttar Pradesh, with 230 million inhabitants, started distributing ivermectin to all its people in May. At that time, Uttar Pradesh was racking up new cases of Covid-19 at the rate of 30,000 cases per day. There have been 1,710,356 confirmed cases of COVID-19.
Currently about 130 people are sick, that is, one in every 1,500,000 inhabitants. The chart tells the story.
So that's the developing world who can't afford to be extorted, and have to act quickly in the face of a rising tsunami of Covid-19 cases.
So now let's return to the 'so called' developed world.
And, don't be mislead by appearances. It's Australia I'm talking about. A nation used to being extorted, and being told what to do. Given its low quality politicians, one that is lucky to be an island with internal borders.
So my silly State Government has rolled out draconian measures against the unvaccinated.
This is the last paragraph of their edict:
"Once restrictions ease and our borders re-open, we expect outbreaks in the community that will put pressure on our hospital system. These measures will be in place to protect both unvaccinated people, and vaccinated people who are most vulnerable to COVID-19."
So the only place that the unvaccinated will be allowed into is hospital.
Do you remember when vaccinated people weren't vulnerable? Do you remember when vaccinated people didn't transmit the virus?
And, what about poor Gibraltar? They don't have any unvaccinated to punish, and covid is increasing.
As an aside, imagine if cash is eliminated in favour of a digital currency. It would be very easy to make the unvaccinated, non-citizens. Keep that in mind as things develop.
The technology of oppression is available. It just needs a nutter, and nutters to vote for the nutter. History tells us that there's no shortage of either when times are tough.
This is a multicultural country that will fall to pieces when the thumb screws are tightened.
My government is not allowing citizens access to repurposed safe drugs like Ivermectin.
But you can do something, and that's boost your vitamin D.
Dr. John Campbell is talking on YouTube about the benefits of Vitamin D here.
It's a bit of a hodgepodge. Sorry about that.
Thank you for reading. A sterling effort if you got to the end.
We need more heterodox versions of events. We're embracing extreme views from our lounge chairs. When instead, we should be out taking radical action to conserve and ration what's left. We should be planning for our decentralised, community owned, low energy future.
Instead we're heading toward war over the remaining energy. That's the human way.
This is a story of the racketeering that government and big business engage in every day.
I'm not sure what the authoritarianism is about. Is it just to pull off this scam or is it practice for reducing the population? Time will tell.
And this will surprise you. I don't get invited to plutocratic cocktail parties so I don't know what's planned for us.
Bullshit Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless, and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth.↩