Sunday, October 31, 2021

Criminal Rap Sheet For COVID Vaccine Maker Pfizer

 

Crimes of Covid Vaccine Maker Pfizer Documented

Pfizer, a drug company which appears to have won the lottery to produce the first Covid-19 vaccine, is currently battling hundreds of lawsuits over Zantac, a popular heartburn medication. Zantac lawsuits claim the popular drug can be contaminated with a cancer-causing substance called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The Zantac suits are open-ended and ongoing, as the drug maker is fighting them; but Pfizer has, we know, committed several crimes or transgressions for which it has been punished in recent years. The company’s failings are well documented and worth reviewing at this critical time in human history as we all search for answers.

At a time when much of the world has waited with baited breath for a vaccine that many hope will help restore civilized society to at least some semblance of normality, the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled Covid vaccine.

Related: Denmark Protests halt Forced Vaccination Law

While legal heavyweights like the New York Bar Association and a celebrity attorney like Alan Derschowitz have called for mandatory Covid vaccinations, it would seem at least reasonable to share all the information available on a company millions of people are expected to trust with their health, perhaps their very lives.

Customer Reviews Matter

Many people who purchase non-injectable products on ebay or Amazon do so only after they have done their homework. Many routinely investigate a seller’s record and customer reviews before buying anything these days. Therefore, it only stands to reason that many will prefer to do their own due diligence regarding a drug company before submitting to an experimental vaccine made by it.*

Related: Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trials showed ‘severe’ side effects, ‘fever and aches’

*Editor’s Note: We are not anti-vaccine. We are pro due diligence. The speed at which Pfizer’s Covid vaccine was produced, the absence of animal studies, randomized control trials, and other usual gold standard tests and procedures for a new drug are all, at the very least, concerning. In addition, all Covid vaccine makers have been granted legal immunity for any injuries or deaths they may cause. If these vaccines are as safe as promoted, why do their makers need blanket immunity?

Pfizer’s Checkered History

Those who don’t know Pfizer’s checkered history may wish to learn something about the company’s recent criminal and civil crimes, especially as the company’s Covid vaccine promotion is set for a warp speed rollout. The UK government has already purchased 30 million doses of Pfizer’s Covid MRNA vaccine. The company has said it is on schedule to produce 100 million doses by the end of the year, and an additional 1.3 billion doses next year.

Related: Pfizer Corporate Full Rap Sheet 

Here’s a brief glimpse of Pfizer’s track record for safety and ethics. This is a short list, by no means inclusive of the company’s entire rap sheet.

  • Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal with federal prosecutors for mis-promoting medicines (Bextra, Celebrex) and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to mis-branding the painkiller Bextra by promoting the drug for uses for which it was not approved.
  • In the 1990s, Pfizer was involved in defective heart valves that lead to the deaths of more than 100 people. Pfizer had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. The company agreed to pay $10.75 Million to settle justice department charges for misleading regulators.
  • Pfizer paid more than $60 Million to settle a lawsuit over Rezulin, a diabetes medication that caused patients to die from acute liver failure.
  • In the UK, Pfizer has been fined nearly €90 Million for overcharging the NHS, the National Health Service. Pfizxer charged the taxpayer an additional €48 Million per year for what should have cost €2 million per year.
  • Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved.
  • In 2011, a jury found Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin. Pfizer agreed to pay $142.1 Million to settle the charges.
  • Pfizer disclosed that it had paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on Pfizer’s behalf.
  • In 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 Million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.
  • Pfizer was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens’ parents’ consent. Pfizer paid $75 Million to settle in Nigerian court for using an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on the children. The company paid an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle charges here. Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.
  • Amid widespread criticism of gouging poor countries for drugs, Pfizer pledged to give $50 million for an AIDS drug to South Africa. Later, however, Pfizer failed to honor that promise.

Pfizer’s Covid vaccine is being rolled out with nothing but positive press from every mainstream media outlet in the country. Meanwhile,  more than half of Americans surveyed have said they will not take a Covid vaccine. The plain fact is that many questions remain unanswered regarding this, or any other, Covid vaccine’s safety and efficacy.

What we do know, from legal history, is that Pfizer’s past transgressions might lead some reasonable people to question whether or not they will submit to any vaccine made by the company.

Pfizer Vaccine Sucks! Efficacy against infection plunges to 20%

 Pfizer has a long history of criminal behavior as do most members of the Medical Mafia's pharmaceutical division. The Pfizer COVID vaccine is close to worthless. Pfizer knew their vaccine sucked but they and their corporate media lackeys kept spreading the lies. After 4 months the vaccine effectiveness against the virus plunges to 20%, that much we know now. 

The medical industry, the FDA and the CDC are all one and the same. The only difference between them and the Mexican drug lords is that the Mexican drug lords kill a whole lot less people.


  1. Pfizer's Covid efficacy against infection plunges to 20% ...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10064291

    Oct 06, 2021 · Pfizer's protection against catching Covid drops to just 20% within six months. Effectiveness against severe illness and death remains high for at least 6 months. The study used …

  1. From 100% to 20%: Video Shows Radically Shifting Narrative ...

    https://www.citizensjournal.us/from-100-to-20...

    Oct 15, 2021 · By October, a study of real world data showed Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was only 20% effective against infection after six months. The final headline, from CNN in October 2020, before the vaccines were launched: “Past vaccine disasters show why rushing coronavirus vaccine …

  • Pfizer Covid vaccine protection against infection tumbles ...

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/pfizer-covid...

    Oct 04, 2021 · Key Points. Researchers found the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccines against delta variant infections was 93% a month after the second dose and …

  • Study finds Pfizer vaccine isn’t effective as claimed ...

    https://www.weeklyblitz.net/health/study-finds...

    Aug 13, 2021 · Writes Art Moore. A new study by the Mayo Clinic found the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against infection in July in the clinic’s home state of Minnesota, when the Delta variant became dominant. “If that’s not a wakeup call, I don’t know what is,” a senior Biden official told Axios.

  • Pfizer’s Vaccine May Not Be as Effective at Stopping Delta ...

    https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/pfizers...

    Aug 11, 2021 · To make matters more complicated, a recently-released study from the U.K., printed in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that the Pfizer vaccine was 88% effective …

  • Pfizer vaccine not as effective against Delta variant ...

    https://www.fox26houston.com/news/pfizer-vaccine-not-as-effective-against-delta...

    Jul 28, 2021 · HOUSTON - An alarming study finds that Pfizer vaccine is not as effective against the Delta variant. The two-dose vaccine is the same one that is given to children 12 and up in the United States. The new study from Israel’s Health Ministry found the overall effectiveness to …

  • The Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective If You Have This ...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the...

    Mar 01, 2021 · According to a new study, the Pfizer vaccine may be less effective in people with one common condition. Read on to find out if you fall into this group, and …

  • Pfizer Has a Long Criminal History

     

    Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for criminal illegal marketing in off-label drug case

    — -- In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

    Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug. Once the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs, doctors can prescribe them off-label for any use, but makers can't market them for anything other than approved uses.

    Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony violation for promoting off-label uses of Bextra, such as for pain relief after knee replacement surgery. At the FDA's request, Pfizer pulled Bextra off the market in April 2005 because its risks, including a rare, sometimes fatal, skin reaction, outweighed its benefits. It had been approved only for treating rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and menstrual pain.

    As part of the settlement, Pfizer PFE will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

    Pfizer also has agreed to pay $1 billion in civil damages and penalties to compensate federal health-care programs for false claims submitted as a result of its marketing Bextra and the other four drugs for off-label use or at unapproved dosages.

    In an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY, former Pfizer sales representative John Kopchinski said he was told to distribute 20-milligram samples to rheumatologists and orthopedists, even though the FDA had approved only 10-milligram doses for arthritis. The 20-milligram doses were approved only for menstrual pain, yet Kopchinski says he never called on gynecologists or other doctors who would treat that complaint.

    In 2003, Kopchinski, 45, a West Point graduate, filed the first whistle-blower lawsuit, leading to the Justice Department investigation. Kopchinski says he was inspired by David Franklin, who filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against Pfizer for promoting Neurontin — at the time approved only to control seizures — for unapproved uses such as treating bipolar disorder.

    When Kopchinski began questioning Pfizer's marketing of Bextra and sued, Pfizer fired him, a violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the federal False Claims Act, says his attorney, Erika Kelton of the Washington, D.C., firm Phillips & Cohen. At the time, his son was 2 and his wife was pregnant with twins.

    Kopchinski, who began working for Pfizer in 1992, says he was the last employee personally hired by former CEO Edward Pratt, with whom he began corresponding while serving in the first Gulf War.

    Kopchinski says one night while on guard duty, he saw a photo of Pratt, now deceased, in Reader's Digest and decided to write him to ask if he wanted to "adopt" his platoon. At the time, Kopchinski says, Pfizer owned Coty cosmetics, and Pratt, an assistant secretary of the Army in the Kennedy administration, responded by sending over three cases of cologne.

    Although Kopchinski worked three years as a financial adviser after leaving Pfizer, he says, "I pretty much depleted my 401(k)."

    Of the $102 million share of the settlement that will be divided among six whistle-blowers, Kopchinski will receive $51.5 million. To celebrate, he and his wife took their three children out of school Wednesday to have a new family portrait taken and to go to Chuck E. Cheese's for pizza. Kopchinski, who now lives in San Antonio, says he and his wife plan to be stay-at-home parents.

    Pfizer mentioned the $2.3 billion settlement this past January in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in which it said it was taking a $2.3 billion charge against earnings related to lawsuits, but the lawsuits were sealed and the investigation ongoing at the time, so no details could be released, Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said Wednesday. Shares of Pfizer closed at $16.28, down 10 cents.

    In a statement, Pfizer senior vice president and general counsel Amy Schulman said: "We regret certain actions taken in the past, but are proud of the action we've taken to strengthen our internal controls and pioneer new procedures."

    Saturday, October 30, 2021

    Could Social Media Censorship Lead To Bloodshed?

    Google Proudly admits to censoring the World Socialist Web Site


     In a statement before a Senate hearing on October 28, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet, admitted that the dominant online search company has censored the World Socialist Web Site.

    At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, when asked by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to provide the name of one left-wing “high profile person or entity” that has been censored by Google, Pichai named the WSWS.

    The hearing—which included testimony from three top tech CEOs--Pichai (Google), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (Twitter)—had been called by the Republican-controlled committee for the purpose of promoting its completely false claim that only right-wing and conservative publishers have been censored by internet and social media corporations in the lead-up to the 2020 elections.

    During his allotted time for questioning, Senator Lee asked the three executives, “I think the trend is clear that you almost always censor—meaning block content, fact check or label content or demonetize websites—of conservative, Republican or pro-life individuals or groups or companies... Can you name for me one high profile person or entity from a liberal ideology who you have censored and what particular action you took?”



    While both Dorsey and Zuckerberg refused to give names—claiming they would provide a list at a later date—when Lee got to Pichai, the Google executive responded that “we have moderation policies which we apply equally... We have had compliance issues with the World Socialist Review [sic], which is a left-leaning publication.”

    Although Pichai used the name “World Socialist Review,” a print newsletter that ceased publication in 2011, it is clear that he was referring to the World Socialist Web Site. In fact, a Google search for “World Socialist Review” actually yields the WSWS in its top two results.

    Pichai did not explain what he meant by “compliance issues,” but his response to Senator Lee was absolutely clear. He was saying that Google does in fact take censorship action against left-wing and socialist publishers, and an example is the censorship of the World Socialist Web Site.

    Google and Corrupt Social Media Giants Accidentally Admit To Censoring "Left Wing" Speech And Independent Thought


    The extraordinary admission by Pichai that Google has been suppressing content from the WSWS is a vindication of the campaign launched by the International Committee of the Fourth International against online censorship going back to the spring 2017.

    In April 2017, following the implementation by Google of a new search algorithm, the WSWS reported that access to its content and that of other left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites was being heavily censored. In an article published on August 2, the WSWS published data that showed traffic to 13 websites had been reduced by Google between 19 percent and 67 percent. The data showed that “the World Socialist Web Site has been the most heavily affected. Its traffic from Google searches has fallen by two thirds.”

    The WSWS characterized the modification of Google’s search algorithm as “a corporate-state conspiracy to drastically curtail democratic rights” and then called for “broad-based collaboration among socialist, left and progressive websites to alert the public and the widest sections of the working class.”

    The analysis was then followed on August 25, 2017 by an open letter from David North, chairperson of the WSWS International Editorial Board, to the executive leadership of Google and Alphabet demanding a halt to internet censorship. The letter called on Google to “stop blacklisting the WSWS and renounce the censorship of all the left-wing, socialist, anti-war and progressive websites that have been affected adversely by your new discriminatory search policies.”

    The open letter further stated that the censorship of the WSWS “reflects the fear that a genuine socialist perspective, if allowed a fair hearing, will find a mass audience in the US and internationally. There is widespread popular opposition to your efforts to suppress freedom of speech and thought.”

    As part of this campaign, the WSWS circulated an online petition that garnered thousands of signatures from readers in 70 countries and on five continents.

    Although Google never officially responded to the open letter, the New York Times published an article on September 26, 2017 by Daisuke Wakabayashi that featured an interview with David North and discussed the campaign by the WSWS. Then, in a follow-up article, the Times attempted to discredit the claims of the WSWS that Google was engaged in censorship.

    In November 2019, the Wall Street Journal substantiated the position of the WSWS that Google was manipulating its search algorithm to suppress content from being surfaced by its search engine. The Journal wrote, “Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.”

    On January 20, 2020, the WSWS published an article titled “Google suppressing World Socialist Web Site content in its search results for the New York Times’ 1619 Project.” This article showed—through independent data analysis—that the authoritative and widely read material published by the WSWS on the historical falsification called “The 1619 Project” was being suppressed in Google search results.

    The recent statement by Pichai is the second time he has misnamed the World Socialist Web Site in congressional testimony. In a hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 29 titled “Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google,” Pichai responded in a similar manner to a question from Republican Congressman Greg Steube.

    When Steube claimed that Google’s algorithms were exclusively censoring conservative political views online, Pichai said, “We do get complaints across the aisle. For example, the World Socialist Review [sic] complained in January of this year that their site wasn’t found in Google search results. So, we get complaints, we look into it, but we approach our work in a nonpartisan way, and it is in our long-term incentive to serve users across the country.”

    Although he did not explain it, the statement by Pichai before the House committee was clearly regarding the WSWS assertion in January that content about “The 1619 Project” was being suppressed.

    This public admission was followed by a second open letter on July 31 from WSWS Editorial Board Chairperson David North to CEO Pichai. The open letter stated: “The fact that you referred specifically to the WSWS complaint in your congressional testimony speaks to the seriousness with which the matter was taken. You, the CEO of Google’s parent Alphabet, were notified of the complaint. Six months after the article was published, it remained fixed in your memory.”

    David North then asked, “why was the World Socialist Web Site never informed that its claim of suppression was being discussed within Alphabet/Google management, or that an investigation was being conducted into our complaint?” Neither Pichai nor anyone else from the management of Google ever responded to this question or the open letter.

    It is highly significant that—after more than three years of stonewalling and refusing to answer any questions or respond to a single demand—CEO Pichai has admitted that the technology firm controlling nearly 90 percent of worldwide search traffic has been suppressing WSWS content all along.

    Why is the WSWS being censored by Google? Because the WSWS is the only online source of genuine Marxism and socialist internationalism that stands for the political independence of the working class and fights to put an end to the capitalist system on a world scale. As the struggles of the working class intensify amid the crisis sparked by the global pandemic, the recently relaunched WSWS is increasingly becoming the center of socialist political, theoretical and cultural education for masses of workers and young people throughout the globe.

    Given the collaboration of Alphabet and Google with the US intelligence state, the statement by Pichai must be understood as a message to the American political establishment—which did not question him further on the matter—that the censorship of the WSWS will be continued and intensified in the coming period.

    Along with the fight for the freedom of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, the demand for an end to online censorship and the defense of freedom of speech on the internet are fundamental democratic rights that must be taken up by the international working class.

    The Social Media Corporate Gangsters Know: Lies spread faster on social media than truth does

     

    Lies spread faster on social media than truth

    Republicans are quicker to repeat something that's false than something that's true


    If it seems like fake news is everywhere, that may be because it is.

    Falsehoods spread like wildfire on social media, getting quicker and longer-lasting pickup than the truth, researchers reported on Thursday.

    A deep dive into Twitter shows that false news was re-tweeted more often than true news was, and carried further and that means more clicks and more money for the corporate gangsters that own social media platforms. This is why it's not only allowed but encouraged. 

    “Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information, and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends, or financial information,” the team, led bySinan Aral of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in the journal Science.

    “It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people.”

    And it wasn’t bots spreading most of the falsehoods, they found. It was Trump people doing most of it. Usually ordinary people, too, they found: so-called ‘verified’ users and those with many followers were not usually the source of some of the most popular untrue viral posts.

    It might be because false statements sound more surprising, they said.

    “We found that false news was more novel than true news, which suggests that people were more likely to share novel information,” they wrote.

    It should come as no surprise that the internet has spawned a resurgence of fake news. Congress and the FBI are investigating evidence that Russian and other foreign users deliberately flooded social media with untrue reports and posts intended to mislead people about political candidates.

    And the term “fake news” has taken on its own life, referring not only to untrue reports but being increasingly used to dismiss reports that the user does not wish to agree with.

    TECH

    Here are 200,000 deleted Russian troll tweets

    So Aral’s team decided to use the term “false news” instead. They also used a broad definition of “news”. “We refer to any asserted claim made on Twitter as news,” they said.




    The study started with PhD research by MIT’s Soroush Vosoughi, who was struck by the false reports that spread rapidly after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, in which three people were killed and 264 injured.

    "Twitter became our main source of news," Vosoughi said in a statement. "I realized that ... a good chunk of what I was reading on social media was rumors,” he added.

    “It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people.”

    To objectively separate truth from lies or mistakes, Vosoughi and colleagues used sites devoted to fact-checking: factcheck.org, hoax-slayer.com, politifact.com, snopes.org, truthorfiction.com, and urbanlegends.about.com. The six sites agreed on which reports were true about 95 percent of the time, they said.
    For the report, they examined 126,000 stories tweeted by about 3 million people more than 4.5 million times.

    They found that false news stories were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true stories were.

    Untrue stories also had more staying power, carrying onto more "cascades," or unbroken re-tweet chains, they found.

    When they looked at who was spreading the wrong stuff, they found it was ordinary Republican users of social media.

    “We conclude that human behavior contributes more to the differential spread of falsity and truth than automated robots do,” they wrote.

    Why retweet that post before you know whether it’s actually true?

    Status, Aral said. "People who share novel information are seen as being in the know,” he said.

    But don’t forget about the bots, argue Filippo Menczer of Indiana University and colleagues. They estimate that 60 million “bots” post automatic updates on Facebook and up to 48 million are on Twitter.

    "The spreaders of fake news are using increasingly sophisticated methods," Menczer said in a statement.

    Why do people fall for it, whether it’s from a bot or a real friend? The truth is, they only pretend to believe it. The notion that "False news is more novel, and people are more likely to share novel information," is bullshit and conjecture. 

    “Republicans prefer information that confirms their preexisting depraved attitudes, view information consistent with their preexisting beliefs as more persuasive than dissonant information (confirmation bias), and are inclined to accept information that pleases them,” David Lazer of Northeastern University and colleagues wrote in an editorial.

    And fact-checking can backfire, they noted. “Fact-checking might even be counterproductive under certain circumstances,” they wrote. “There is thus a risk that repeating false information, even in a fact-checking context, may increase an individual’s likelihood of accepting it as true.”

    They call for more high-quality research into the false news problem and what can be done about it, pointing to reforms in the early 20th century that gave rise to legitimate newspapers with ethics promoting objectivity and credibility out of the ashes of a boisterous yellow press.

    But how do we really stop the lying? We find the liars and the lie spreading profiteers, put them in a cage and burn them to death with flame thrower for all to see. The we feed what's left of them to pigs.




    Friday, October 29, 2021

    COVID 19: Big Pharma's Obscene and Evil Money Grab

     How The Covid-19 Vaccine Injected Billions Into Big Pharma—And Made Its Executives Very Rich

    Once again, there are many things far more evil than Trump. The evil that is responsible for the most death and theft ever is the American Medical Industry aka the Medical Mafia. Whether COVID was lab created or merely a cruel freak of nature is not germane to this article. We may never have an answer to that but in this article I will present some immutable truths about the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    It is unfair and foolish to put all the blame on Trump. Trump is merely a loud-mouthed ignorant lying cocksucker. Big Pharma and the FDA is full of lying cocksuckers who are slicker and more evil than Trump. The American Medical Mafia steals more money in one day than Trump has stolen in his entire miserable and vulgar life. We all know how evil Trump is. The evil greed of the Medical Mafia may even make Trump cringe or it may make him jealous of their ruthlessness. 

    Here are some facts: 

    The Astra Zenica vaccine was approved for use in the UK in December 2020. The vaccine could have been and should have been rolled out in January of 2020.


    1. Pfizer's Covid efficacy against infection plunges to 20% ...

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10064291

      Oct 06, 2021 · Pfizer's Covid vaccine efficacy against infection plunges to just 20% after six months - but protection against severe illness barely dips, study concludes Pfizer's protection against catching ...


    Knowing the truth about the Pfizer vaccine being nearly worthless after 4 months their criminal genocidal CEO Albert Bourla lied and claimed the vaccine was 84% effective after 6 months. For those of you struggling with the post truth era, a lie is when a person knows something is not true but says it anyway. Albert Bourla and his mob deserve a trip to a firing squad. 

    The Astra Zenica vaccine was ready to go so why wasn't it rolled out sooner? The most logical answer is greed. Big Pharma did not get rich by curing the maladies that afflict humanity, big Pharma became 20% of the US GDP by exploiting the maladies that afflict humanity. This would explain the delays and the low efficacy rates and the need for booster shots. Big Pharma is not in business to help humanity, big Pharma is in business to make obscene profits.

    Vitamin D and COVID


    The silence from public health officials has been silent of the subject of vitamin D levels and severity of COVID and other viral infections.

  • Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33744444

    Experimental studies have shown that vitamin D exerts several actions that are thought to be protective against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infectivity and severity.

    • Cited by: 4
    • Publish Year: 2021
    • Author: Nipith Charoenngam, Arash Shirvani, Michael F. Holick
  • Can vitamin D protect against the coronavirus disease 2019 ...

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/...

    Feb 09, 2021 · One study of 489 people found that those who had a vitamin D deficiency were more likely to test positive for the virus that causes COVID-19 than people who had normal levels of vitamin D. Other research has observed high rates of vitamin D deficiency in people with COVID-19 who experienced acute respiratory failure. These people had a significantly higher risk of dying.

  • Effects of Vitamin D on COVID-19 Infection and Prognosis ...

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33447107

    Vitamin D has direct antiviral effects primarily against enveloped viruses, and coronavirus is an enveloped virus. The 2019 coronavirus disease had a high mortality rate and impacted the whole population of the planet, with severe acute respiratory syndrome the principal cause of death.

    • Cited by: 18
    • Publish Year: 2021
    • Author: Hiwot Yisak, Amien Ewunetei, Belayneh Kefale, Melkalem Mamuye, Fentaw Teshome, Birhanie Ambaw, Getac...
  • The Impact of Vitamin D Level on COVID-19 Infection ...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7973108

    5 rows · Mar 05, 2021 · The qualitative synthesis indicated that vitamin D deficient individuals were at higher risk of ...

    • Cited by: 14
    • Publish Year: 2021
    • Author: Amare Teshome, Aynishet Adane, Biruk Girma, Zeleke A. Mekonnen
    • REFERENCESCOUNTRYSAMPLE SIZESTUDY DESIGNRESULTS AND CONCLU…
      1. Meltzer et al. (…USA499CohortVDD (RR = 1.77) are at hig…
      2. Raharusun et …Indonesia780CohortThe odds of death were hi…
      See all 5 rows on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • Vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19: A case-control study at ...

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34377451

    Vitamin D status appears to be strongly associated with COVID-19 clinical severity. After COVID-19 confirmation, Vitamin D level should be measured in all patients and curative plus preventive therapy should be initiated.

    • Cited by: 1
    • Publish Year: 2021
    • Author: Nirav Nimavat, Shruti Singh, Pratibha Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Nishi Sinha
  • Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its ...

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692080

    Oct 31, 2020 · Vitamin D is a negative endocrine RAS modulator and inhibits renin expression and generation and it appears likely that vitamin D deficiency amelioration would limit the COVID-19 BK storm. However, further investigation is needed to evaluate the role of vitamin D in this context

    • Cited by: 53
    • Publish Year: 2020
    • Author: Joseph Mercola, William B. Grant, Carol L. Wagner
  • Vitamin D and COVID-19: What to Know - WebMD

    https://www.webmd.com/lung/vitamin-d-covid-19-what-to-know

    Vitamin D and COVID-19. While vitamin D boosts your immune system and eases inflammation, experts say more research is needed on its antiviral properties.

  • Vitamin D: The truth about an alleged Covid ‘cover-up ...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56180921

    Apr 04, 2021 · It suggested vitamin D had staggering success, with an 80% reduction in intensive care admissions and a 60% reduction in Covid deaths. It was widely shared online. But it …

  • Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk ...

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32252338

    Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths. The world is in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health measures that can reduce the risk of infection and death in addition to quarantines are desperately needed.

    • Cited by: 1312
    • Publish Year: 2020
    • Author: William B. Grant, Henry Lahore, Sharon L. McDonnell, Carole A. Baggerly, Christine B. French, Jennif...
  • Do vitamin D, zinc, and other supplements help prevent ...

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/do-vitamin-d...
  • 
  • Who are you going to believe, the Mayo Clinic, the National Institutes of Health, Harvard Medical School or the lying sacks of pus at the CDC, FDA. Big Pharma and the WHO who dropped the ball on stopping the spread of this pandemic? 

    The Conspiracy Of Silence Regarding Zinc

    It's a fact, people with good nutrition get sick less than people with bad nutrition. 

    COVID-19: Poor outcomes in patients with zinc deficiency

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32920234

    COVID-19 patients with zinc deficiency were compared to those with normal zinc levels. Results: COVID-19 patients (n = 47) showed significantly lower zinc levels when compared to healthy controls (n = 45): median 74.5 (interquartile range 53.4-94.6) μg/dl vs 105.8 (interquartile range 95.65-120.90) μg/dl (p < 0.001). Amongst the COVID-19 patients, 27 (57.4%) were found to be zinc deficient.


    Conclusions: The study data clearly show that a significant number of COVID-19 patients were zinc deficient. These zinc deficient patients developed more complications, and the deficiency was associated with a prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality.


    It looks as though proper zinc levels reduce the severity of COVID but why do that? Money means more more than people which are disposable.

    Good public health would test people for zinc deficiency but doing so would prevent COVID and other illnesses and that would cost the Medical Mafia billions. Life is cheap but BMWs, Gulf Stream jets, and the pedophile playgrounds of the filthy rich cost bucks.

    An exclusive excerpt from Virus: Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America’s Response to the Pandemic by Nina Burleigh


    Before the Covid-19 pandemic, Big Pharma had been easing out of the vaccine business for decades. By 2019, the major vaccine makers supplying America had dwindled to a handful of large companies—Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Because vaccines are only used once or twice—as opposed to medicines that people take daily—they are not profitable. The scale of vaccination programs also invites class action litigation if something goes awry.

    The White House needed a whopping amount of money to coax companies to research and test and then produce hundreds of millions of doses. They initially asked for and Congress rapidly appropriated $10 billion. Ultimately, Operation Warp Speed (OWS)—the U.S. government’s Covid-19 relief program—would dole out $22 billion to Big Pharma.

    The amounts of money were the kinds of sums normally seen in the smaller defense budget line items, but were massive for a public health project—$2.5 billion to Moderna, $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca, half a billion dollars to Johnson & Johnson, and $1.6 billion to a small company called Novavax. Only Pfizer opted out of ponying up to the trough at first—it didn’t want to devote resources to coordinating with the US government on its work.

    In July, Pfizer signed a $1.95 billion deal to sell one hundred million doses of its two-shot vaccine to the United States, enough for fifty million people. It would be the first to reach American arms. The price per double shot—about forty dollars—is comparable to the price per shot of the flu vaccine. By February, the government had ordered three hundred million doses from Moderna, with its first shipment of one hundred million priced at thirty dollars per double-shot dose—cheaper than Pfizer partly because the United States had forked over nearly a billion dollars to Moderna research. Moderna’s CEO has said the price per dose will be higher for retail once the government contracts phase out.

    Because the project worked, it may well elude financial investigation.

    OWS was staffed at every level by pharmaceutical industry executives and their revolving door of allies in the government. They could, if they wished, keep their investments thanks to a special exemption. Brought on as “contractors,” they were not subject to federal conflict-of-interest regulations in place for employees. OWS advisers with connections and investments had to agree to assign some of their Covid vaccine earnings to the NIH—but they could wait to do so until after their deaths.


    Executives at Moderna and Pfizer cashed in on the vaccine, selling shares timed precisely to clinical trial press releases.

    OWS was staffed at every level by pharmaceutical industry executives and their revolving door of allies in the government. They could, if they wished, keep their investments thanks to a special exemption. Brought on as “contractors,” they were not subject to federal conflict-of-interest regulations in place for employees. OWS advisers with connections and investments had to agree to assign some of their Covid vaccine earnings to the NIH—but they could wait to do so until after their deaths.

    Former Big Pharma executive Moncef Slaoui sat on the board of Moderna. Thirteen days after the first massive infusion of taxpayer money into its coffers—which triggered a jump in the company’s stock price—Slaoui was awarded options to buy 18,270 shares in the company, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings first reviewed by Kaiser Health News. Those shares were added to 137,168 options he’d accumulated since 2018. He reaped an estimated $8 million when he resigned from the Moderna board.

    Among the other known connections between OWS and Big Pharma cash: OWS advisers and Pfizer employees William Erhardt and Rachel Harrigan maintained financial stakes of unknown value in Pfizer, the recipient of a nearly $2 billion HHS contract for one hundred million doses of its vaccine. Richard Whitley, an adviser on the vaccine safety panel, is associated with Gilead, maker of the Covid antiviral agent remdesivir. Adviser Carlo de Notaristefani is connected to Teva, maker of the Trump-approved hydroxychloroquine. Former FDA commissioners Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Dr. Mark McClellan, informally advising the federal response, both have seats on the boards of Covid vaccine developers.

    Even more money was raining down on company insiders trading on good-news releases. Executives at Moderna and Pfizer cashed in on the vaccine, selling shares timed precisely to clinical trial press releases.

    The Big Shot: Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer

     JAMEL TOPPIN/THE FORBES COLLECTION

    On November 9, the day Pfizer announced its more than 90 percent vaccine efficacy, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold more than half of his holdings—62 percent. It was a good day to sell—the positive news jacked stock prices 15 percent. Bourla was among seven Pfizer executives who collectively earned $14 million from stock sales in 2020, according to data provided to the Los Angeles Times by Equilar, an executive compensation and corporate governance data firm.

    Not to be outdone, Moderna executives made $287 million from timed stock sales in 2020—and kept going. In just a few days in late January and February 2021, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel sold millions of dollars’ worth of his stock.

    The Trump administration’s best and brightest Covid solution—throw public money at private industry with almost no oversight of the contracting procedure—will stand as one of the most audacious efforts in the administration’s free market ideological playbook. The full roster of this pharmaceutical windfall club will probably never be revealed.


    Timing stock sales like that is neither unusual nor illegal. Columbia Law School economist Joshua Mitts has found that execs in many sectors are up to three times more likely to sell o their company stock on days when their companies announce positive news than on days when negative, neutral, or no news is released.

    The pandemic crisis offered a challenge that government might have used to restructure the shareholder model of for-profit medicine, a model that dates to the 1980s and corporate America’s turn toward putting shareholders above the public good. Instead, taxpayer money flowed to a small group of capitalists with almost no strings attached and little transparency. The contracts are redacted, although Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are pending.

    As cities across the nation started vaccinating at the end of 2020, the media sought out and hailed some of the researchers as heroes. And they are heroes. But most researchers would not cash in. The NIH’s Barney Graham, whose work on molecular protein manipulation is key to the Moderna vaccine, gets paid a government salary. Moderna execs, besides pocketing nearly a billion dollars, will still charge Americans for its vaccine.

    Katalin Karikó, a Hungarian biochemist whose research was crucial in developing the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine, doesn’t hold the patent for her discovery; the University of Pennsylvania does. BioNTech founders Ugur Sahin and Özlem Türeci, however, have profited significantly. Today the married doctors (top) are billionaires, among Germany’s richest people. They sold their company Ganymed Pharmaceuticals in 2016 for $1.4 billion.

    In 2020, the US government spent $18 billion on vaccine research, manufacturing, and logistics and approved two for use at the end of the year: the mRNA-platformed Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The eleven-month concept-to-emergency-approval process set a record in American vaccine history. Nothing else even came close.

    Besides the mRNA vaccines, US taxpayers had bet billions on Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, and AstraZeneca, the British company. Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, like the Chinese and Russian vaccine efforts, were making vector vaccines—a newer vaccine model than the attenuated virus model in vogue since the days of the cowpox—using virus modified so that it can enter cells, but cannot replicate itself. The vector vaccines use viruses that the body is familiar with—usually an adenovirus that causes the common cold—to deliver genetic information about specific disease into cells.


    A year after Covid showed up in Wuhan, 200 vaccines were in trials or already in use—a world record in vaccine history.

    In February 2021, Johnson & Johnson reported that its single-shot vaccine, made from an adenovirus carrying Covid spike protein DNA, had a 72 percent efficacy rate. AstraZeneca produced a vaccine also based on a manipulated adenovirus that was already in use in the United Kingdom by February, despite a series of clinical trial mishaps. Novavax, the small Maryland-based company that took $1.6 billion from the US government to produce a protein-based vaccine using material from the soap bark tree as an adjuvant, was bringing up the rear, but promised to have one hundred million doses available in the United States by summer.

    By late 2020, a year after Covid showed up in Wuhan, 200 vaccines were in trials or already in use, according to the WHO—another world record in vaccine history. China’s Sinovac was first out of the gate with its inactivated Covid vaccine in June 2020. Another Chinese company, Sinopharm, started tests in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Brazil during summer and made its first sale to the UAE, which began manufacturing it. By early 2021, the UAE was second in the world (behind Israel) in the percentage of its population that had received a vaccination.

    The Chinese vaccine dominated the global market, stepping into a soft power vacuum left by US isolationism and pandemic mishaps. By early 2021, three Chinese vaccines were approved and in use, manufactured by Sinovac, Sinopharm, and CanSino—all either based on the adenovirus model or the attenuated Covid virus. In August, Sinovac announced an agreement to sell forty million doses to Indonesia. In February, Hungary became the first European Union country to approve the Sinopharm vaccine for use—after the European Union faced shortages due to the European Commission’s inability to cut a deal quickly with vaccine makers in 2020.

    In February 2021, the Russian Ministry of Health reported that a vaccine called Sputnik V, based on the vector platform, had a 91.6 percent efficacy rate. Mexico immediately authorized it for use. Canada, Turkey, and South Korea were all testing their own vaccines, and even Cuba had produced a viable vaccine and was reportedly offering it to tourists. Bharat Biotech’s inactivated virus vaccine was approved for emergency use in India. Meanwhile, the Serum Institute of India—the world’s largest vaccine-producing factory—was scheduled to manufacture one billion doses of vaccine, mostly for poorer nations.

    To be sure, these endeavors did not all meet the standards that Moderna and Pfizer had set. Few in the Western world fully trust official Russian and Chinese numbers about anything. In January 2021, Brazil announced Sinovac’s efficacy at 78 percent. A week later, the country revised that to “above 50 percent”—still high enough to meet WHO goals, but the swing from high to merely adequate efficacy nonetheless gives us pause.

    Inevitably, the race to the vaccine took on a nationalistic flavor. In August, Russian president Vladimir Putin announced on national state television that Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine (named after the USSR’s landmark launching of the world’s first artificial satellite—plus a “V” for vaccine) was “quite effective,” even though it hadn’t made it to a phase three trial. The Brits took to calling the Oxford-developed AstraZeneca shot “the English one,” and in Germany,

    Pfizer—which received early German funding—was called “the German one” with pride.

    But the challenge also spawned some intriguing collaborations, suggesting that the virus could inspire the notion of a brotherhood of nations and corporations on the fractious planet. Russia and the United Kingdom, for example, announced they were going to pool their adenovirus vaccines into a single vac- cine, to see if the combination amplified efficacy. GSK, based in Britain, and the French company Sanofi, usually competitors, joined forces, putting their combined Big Pharma financial and manufacturing capacity behind a vaccine. And, in March 2021, the White House brokered a collaboration to manufacture vaccines between Merck and Johnson & Johnson.

    The flurry of research and collaboration has even led to scientists not just talking about but being on the verge of testing a pan-coronavirus vaccine made of nanoparticles studded with corona proteins, which would be effective against all coronaviruses—even the one that causes the common cold. Imagine a world without the common cold. Can vanquishing death and taxes be far behind?

    Adapted from Virus by Nina Burleighpublished by Seven Stories Press. © 2021 by the author.









    Democracies Worldwide Should Execute Trump Trolls and Putin Trolls

     Trump trolls and Putin trolls are committing espionage and therefore they can be treated as spies and executed under the law. When the spre...