This article was previously published on March 24, 2021, and has been informed with new information.
As noted by Russel Brand in a recent video note( above ), some of the same drug companies now responsible for developing and manufacturing fast-tracked COVID-1 9 vaccines were also responsible for creating the opioid crisis in the U.S ., which has killed as many Americans as have died from COVID-1 9.
Most have also been convicted of other unethical and criminal activities over the years, any of which positions their ethical fitness into question. Not surprisingly, opioid addiction and overdose demises skyrocketed during 2020 lockdowns and , now, COVID-1 9 vaccines are taking their fee as well.
Johnson& Johnson Found Partly Liable for Opioid Crisis
In 2019, Johnson& Johnson was noticed partly accountable for the “human and financial costs” of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. and was ordered to pay $572 million to the government of Oklahoma. While the company disclaimed any misbehavior, “data uncovered during the trial proved a culture of minimise the risks of opioids to customers and physicians, ” Cassiobury Court reported, adding: 1
“Sales representatives were trained to tell physicians that the risk of addiction was 2.6% or less if the dopes were prescribed by a doctor and, most shockingly, physicians were specifically targeted as’ key customers’ if they had a history of prescribing a high amount of opioids.”
In “Capitalism Gone Wrong: How Big Pharma Created America’s Opioid Carnage, ” published in The Guardian July 24, 2019, Chris McGreal, scribe of “American Overdose, the Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts, ” wrote: 2
“Oklahoma’s attorney general accused the societies of a’ wily, cynical and fraudulent scheme’ to ramp up sedative analgesic sales as one of a entanglement of enterprises that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as revenues surged. The companionships cultivated in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators and politicians.”
Curiously, as noted by Brand, Johnson& Johnson’s stock price rose by 5% immediately following that judgment. What this represents, he intimates, is that we’ve created plans that encourage malpractice. Benefit purposes supersede all other concerns, including lethal effects.
When firms engage in unethical behavior, peculiarly the forgery and manipulation of discipline, they establish distrust and cynicism. This is advisable to obvious, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own.
Importantly, Johnson& Johnson procreated spuriou claims about the safety of its opioid, going so far as to manipulate scientific papers to support its assertion that the risk of addiction was less than 2.6%. 3 As Brand points out, when companies engage in unethical behavior, especially the forgery and manipulation of discipline, they originate distrust and cynicism.
This should be self-evident, and it’s nobody’s fault but their own. We can point to these very specific samples and say, “Look here. They influenced and falsified science to make money. When they were caught, all they had to do was pay a manageable fine, which they remunerated through a rise in stock price.”
If it happened formerly( and believes me, it’s happened more than formerly ), it can happen again. And if it can happen at all, why couldn’t this unethical behavior occur when creating what is expected to be a phenomenally rewarding pandemic vaccine? We’re told we must not question the safety or effectiveness of COVID-1 9 vaccines, hitherto the story of the makes is so great that not questioning everything they do would be naive in the extreme.
Johnson& Johnson has also been involved in a long list of commodity safety and contamination issues, sell and safety abuses, government contract contraventions and foreign pervert rehearsals developing in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalizes. You got to find their rap sheet on the Corporate Research Project’s website. 4
Pfizer’s Long History of Unethical Behavior
Another COVID-1 9 vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer, has been litigated in variou venues over unethical behavior, 5 including unethical drug testing and illegal marketing practices.
In 2014, it was ordered to pay $ 75 million to settle blames on issues related to its testing of a new expansive range antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent6 at the time, Pfizer sent a crew of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
For two weeks, the team set up “within meters” of a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental stimulant, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental medicine and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin. Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure.
Pfizer revoked wrongdoing. Harmonizing to the company, simply five of the children established Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their medication was not to blame. The difficulty was they apparently never told the mothers that their children were being given an experimental drug.
What’s more, while Pfizer induced a allow word from a Nigerian ethics committee, the word turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the tribulation had already taken place.
In his 2010 newspaper, 7 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR, ” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D ., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a’ habitual convict, ’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing patterns, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and the relevant subsidiary were penalized$ 3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.
Such summing-ups did nothing to deter bad demeanor. In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay $ 14.5 million to settle federal fees of illegal marketing, 8 and in 2014 they reconciled federal freights relating to improper marketing of the kidney implant remedy Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. 9
The Corporate Research Project likewise details Pfizer’s history of bribery, environmental misdemeanours, labor and worker safety abuses and more. 10 Pfizer has also been bullying countries to put up sovereign resources as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its vaccine. 11
Pfizer’s Vaccine Plant Has History of Recalls
A March 10, 2021, article1 2 by KHN too spotlights lingering, long-standing questions at Pfizer’s vaccine plant in Kansas, which is slated to start producing COVID-1 9 inoculations 😛 TAGEND
“The McPherson, Kansas, equipment, which FDA superintendents wrote is the nation’s largest producer of sterile injectable controlled substances, has a long, agitated biography. Roughly a decade’s worth of FDA inspection reports, recalls and castigations reviewed by KHN show the equipment as a repeat offender.
FDA investigates have repeatedly noted in reports that the flora has failed to control quality and taint or amply investigate after make failures.
The 1970 s-era manufacturing site has had persistent mold concerns over the years and been the focus of at least four intense FDA inspections since Pfizer took over its operations in late 2015, where reference is acquired Hospira.”
The plant is going to be a fill-and-finish site for the Pfizer vaccine. The question is whether the site has really cleaned up its deed, or whether taint might become an issue.
“The facility’s record of recalls and field alerts include vials of medication that contained glass and cardboard particles and, as one customer deplored, a’ small insect or speck of dust, ‘” KHN reports.
“A 2017 FDA warning letter … said the contaminants such as cardboard and glass found in vials posed a’ severe peril of harm to patients’ and indicated that the facility’s process for manufacturing sterile injectable makes was’ out of control.’”
AstraZeneca’s Extensive Rap Sheet
Then there’s AstraZeneca, whose head of research for the dope Seroquel, Wayne MacFadden, admitted to entering into multiple sex circumstances for the sole purpose of obtaining information and favors that might benefit the company. 13
Aside from that eyebrow-raising scandal, AstraZeneca has been brought into the halls of right more than formerly. Below is but a sampling of its criminal autobiography. Even more can be found on the Corporate Research Project’s “AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet” page: 14
In 2003, AstraZeneca was fined $ 355 million to settle Medicare fraud bills relating to its marketing of the cancer drug Zoladex. 15,16 Among the many accusations they pleaded guilty to was that they had encouraged doctors to illegally request Medicare reimbursements. Four years later, in 2007, the company was ordered to pay another $12.9 million in impairs for its overcharging Medicare and private assurance for Zoladex1 7
In 2005, the European Commission penalized AstraZeneca 60 billion euros for ill-use the patent system to delay market entry of competing generics1 8,19
In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined $ 520 million for off-label drug marketing2 0
Also in 2010, the company agreed to pay $ 198 million to settle more than 25,000 litigations filed by cases adversely affected by three of its psychiatric drugs2 1
In 2016, the U.S. Certificate and Exchange Commission penalized the company $ 4.3 million for improperly forcing and rewarding prescribers to use their concoctions, in other words, bribery2 2
AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Is For-Profit After All
Now, AstraZeneca has made a big deal about its devote not to profit from its COVID-1 9 vaccine. Adrian Hill, conductor of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and the co-developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has gone on record saying “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic the work requires exclusive licenses.”2 3 As reported by KHN: 24
“Oxford University surprised and satisfied advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker. The sentiment was to provide remedies foreclosing or plowing COVID-1 9 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said …
‘We actually thought they were going to do that, ’ James Love, conductor of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge.’ Why wouldn’t parties agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible? ’”
The fantasy didn’t last long. A few weeks later, Oxford University caved to the exhorts of the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation and ratified an exclusive contract with AstraZeneca. Harmonizing to an commodity in The Nation, 25 “Gates himself describes his groundwork as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.”
This vaccine deal causes AstraZeneca “sole rights and no guarantee of low prices, ” KHN writes. 26 Indeed, the not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself appears to have a say when it comes to testifying the end date. It could be as early as July 1, 2021, according to a company memo obtained by the Financial Times. 27
As explained by investigate journalist Whitney Webb in a Corbett Report interview, 28 the actual patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a private firm announced Vaccitech, which has been rather open about the future benefit potential with its shareholders , noting that the COVID-1 9 inoculation will most probably become an annual vaccine that is updated each season. Oxford University itself also stands to compile millions from the administer. Harmonizing to KHN: 29
“Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, rallying billions in government grants, hoarding patents, uncovering as little as possible about their transactions — and planning to charge up to $ 37 a dosage for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.”
All of this say to you that the same greed that drove these drug companies into criminal acts before is still at play today, and they have repeatedly proven that profit potential triumphs over impairment capacity every time.
Leaked Data Warn of mRNA Instability
A recent feature investigation3 0 by journalist Serena Tinari published in The BMJ assesses the content of seeped — perhaps hacked — papers evidencing the European Medicines Agency( EMA) had very concerned about early batches of the Pfizer vaccine having lower than anticipated the different levels of intact mRNA 😛 TAGEND
“EMA scientists tasked with ensuring manufacturing quality — the chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA — worried about’ truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.’
Among the many data seeped to The BMJ, an email dated 23 November[ 2020] by a high ranking EMA official delineated a raft of issues. In short-lived, business manufacturing was not producing inoculations to the specifications expected, and regulators were unsure of the implications. EMA responded by filing two’ major objections’ with Pfizer, together with a legion of other questions it required addressed.
The email recognized’ a significant difference in% RNA integrity/ truncated species’ between the clinical quantities and proposed commercial batches — from all over 78% to 55%. The beginning crusade was unknown and the impact of this loss of RNA integrity on safety and efficacy of the inoculation was’ hitherto to be defined, ’ the email said.”
Considering the delivery of intact mRNA is of crucial importance for the efficacy of this inoculation, the doubt is that the lower levels might yield the inoculation ineffective.
One trouble is that while the EMA has authorized Pfizer’s vaccine and issued a public rating stating the quality is “considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable, ” it’s not clear if and how the agency’s concerns about inadequate mRNA heights were actually corrected.
The EMA has explained apart the issue by stating that some of the seeped knowledge was “partially doctored” by essentially chipping and pasting data from different users into valid emails.
“But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA inoculations, ” Tinari writes, “which include everything from the quantification and unity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the deployment of molecule lengths and encapsulation efficiency.”
It’s well-recognized that RNA instability is of the utmost importance when it comes to this kind of technology, as even minor deterioration anywhere along the RNA strand can brake the translation act and to be translated into the incomplete speech of the target antigen( in this case the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein ).
One problem is there’s no regulatory counseling for mRNA located “vaccines.” Yet another difficulty is that the data currently available are so scant that regulators probably wouldn’t be able to make an appropriate assessment about the proportion of unscathed mRNA required for efficacy.
Lipid Nanoparticles Are Highly Inflammatory
mRNA fragility and instability are the reasons why Pfizer and Moderna use a lipid nanoparticle bringing method, which imparts a whole separate name of difficulties. Scientist and researcher Judy Mikovits, Ph.D ., believes the nanoparticle allows the mRNA to escape the normal degradation by enzymes that normally remove mRNA, thereby allowing it to persist in your tissues for a very long time, continuing to produce spike proteins all the while.
As previously believed, research3 1 affixed March 4, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv now warns that the lipid nanoparticle component of these mRNA inoculations is in fact “highly inflammatory” and may be responsible for many of the side effects being reported. According to the authors 😛 TAGEND
“Vaccines based on mRN-Acontaining lipid nanoparticles( LNPs) are a promising brand-new platform be exploited by two guiding vaccines … Clinical ordeals and ongoing vaccinations present with very high protection levels and varying levels of side effects. However, the nature of the reported side effects remains inadequately defined.
Here we present evidence that LNPs used in many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory in mice.
Intradermal injection of these LNPs led to rapid and robust inflammatory responses, are characteristic of massive neutrophil infiltration, activation of diverse inflammatory pathways, and production of various inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The same quantity of LNP delivered intranasally led to same inflammatory responses in the lung and resulted in a high mortality rate …
Their potent adjuvant activity and reported advantage comparing to other adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses could stem from their inflammatory mood. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human inoculations, which could also explain the studied side effects in humen consuming this platform.”
Can You Trust Big Pharma to Safeguard Your Health?
Considering their long autobiographies of unethical, illegal and criminal behaviors, Pfizer, Johnson& Johnson and AstraZeneca are hardly lighthouses of hope for mankind when it comes to COVID-1 9 — or any other pandemic, for that matter.
Sadly, the rapidly increasing reports of serious side effects and deaths per these doses, and the companies’ dismissal of these events as accidental or immaterial further prove that profit is still the primary move. If they can make a buck by discount a problem, they will.
Read more: articles.mercola.com